A HISTORY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT
REORGANIZATION IN THE

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Thesis Ior “I0 chno of DII. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

David Wood
1967

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\W\\\\I\\\\\\\

3 1293‘

This is to certifgthat the

thesis entitleg'r

A HISTORY OF SCHOOL
DISTRICT REORGANIZATION
IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

presented by
David Wood

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

E; degree mm

Maj professor

\

Date February 22, 1967 -

0-169

 

 

7. I -
'--' v "\m
‘ 1" '"w- ' .< —.- -- -
l”"---- -w-

. A . ..-. u...- .-._.. ...
Giffw‘" Mit- ‘3—Itshf
4* '— Juv-o “Q.

 

 

 

v’ 1'7"". "'ZKW'LWMMW
y.‘ A ‘- . “A. -xs-z

 

 

T'—

‘Il

 

affected t

final pr
ticn of 1

-w-
aE-Eemen

ABSTRACT
A HISTORY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION
IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

by David Wood

The problem of school district reorganization is
affected by rapidly increasing enrollments, lack of funds,
and a shortage of well-qualified school people. The prob-
lem is further complicated by changing educational needs,
by the demands of the public for a more adequate educa-
tional program, and by America's long established tradi-
tion of local control over education. There is general
agreement that all children should have equal and adequate
educational Opportunities. The basic problem is to dis-
cover a means of reorganizing school districts in such a
way that adequate educational programs will be offered to
all children without loss of basic, long established,
democratic principles.

The purposes of this study have been to describe
the history and trends of school district reorganization
in the State of Michigan and the events that have led to

current reorganization legislation; to present an

P‘Llic Att

_\u

A l.
:1 C].

v

nap-A
‘

35“.»

.3
co
7.

gani:

Ts

David Wood

evaluation and comparison of Michigan's reorganization
progress to that of the nation, and to selected states.
Particular emphasis has been focused on a description of
Public Act 289 of 1964 and the effects it has had on
school districts in the state. On the basis of an anal-
ysis of Michigan's school district reorganization history
and results of the current legislation, predictions and
recommendations have been made.

Information has been gathered from a review of
the literature, a study of data from State Department of
Education offices in response to a letter requesting re-
organization information, a study of all annual reports
of the Superintendent of Public Instruction published
since 1840, a review of all plans submitted by interme-
diate reorganization committees in compliance with Public
Act 289 of 1964, and an analysis of school district re-
organization data collected by the Michigan Department
of Education.

The major findings of the study are as follows:

*School district reorganization is continuing at
a rapid pace throughout the nation. The primary factor

stimulating reorganization has been the desire to obtain

agreezent
xganlzat-
.‘ l J
leg.s.ati
trltts.

+»
a;
.\..A

T»
.5

.. .
«alu

z-o
\-

i

‘

Pub
noel

1

quire

§
5

‘31.
letcr,

azcng t}

SC

David Wood

adequate school districts, although there is a lack of
agreement concerning criteria to measure school district
adequacy.

*There are great variations in the type of re-
organization legislation adopted by the states. However,
most states have common features in their reorganization
legislation. The goal in every state that has conducted
reorganization activities has been to reduce the number
of school districts in an effort to improve educational
opportunities. Several states have had to use mandatory
legislation to adequately reorganize their school dis-
tricts. Organization along county lines has been found
to be the most expedient method of reorganizing school
districts.

*Michigan has not been a leader in reorganization,
but Public Act 289 of 1964 will cause Michigan to move up
among the leaders in school district reorganization.

*Public Act 289 of 1964 was the most extensive
school district reorganization legislation ever approved
in the State of Michigan; it evolved naturally from the
history of school district reorganization in Michigan and
followed the philosophy that was established in the state
as far back as 1900. The act was mandatory in that it re-

quired a reorganization study in each intermediate school

..'.V -6
o¢:““'b.

.quW n“?—
.,.u r ‘ ”
. . r

k,
.
Q |

- V
zen-nzgn

1213613". -

 

David Wood

district. However, reorganization became effective only
upon approval of local electors.

*Public Act 289 of 1964 helped eliminate many
non-high school districts and caused improvement of some
K-lZ districts. Although the act was extremely effective
in improving Michigan school districts both directly and
indirectly, there were weaknesses in it and difficulties
in the application of it, thus several inadequate school
districts were not affected by the legislation. A strength-
ening of legislation is needed to complete reorganization
of school districts into adequate administrative units

for all children in the state.

A HISTORY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

by

David Wood

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1967

 

ice

f

.a‘.‘
55‘

o.

S

gst

fr‘W“
IoTLss
.

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to Charmaine who
sacrificed and suffered with the writer through the many
trying stages of the doctoral program, and who provided
the sympathy and encouragement needed to overcome each
obstacle. It is further dedicated to Lisa, David and
Todd, who have known their daddy primarily as a college

student throughout their entire lives.

,3
I
uA.»
S»
a VA

is
.p"

u
y

..' m.

a

a I

b‘b“

‘octsral

4'
u

gan,

A

\d

I
.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer is deeply indebted to all those who
helped make possible the completion of this study. Par-
ticular appreciation is expressed to George Schutt and
Roger Boline of the State Department of Education for
providing an opportunity to use department facilities
while preparing the dissertation, and for the personal
assistance they gave in the preparation of it.

Great appreciation is expressed to Dr. William H.
Roe, original committee chairman, for the guidance and
encouragement he gave during the early stages of the
doctoral program. Further appreciation is expressed to
Dr. Stanley E. Hecker who acted as committee chairman
during the past year, and to committee members Dr. Norman

Kagan, Dr. Donald Leu, and Dr. James McKee.

iii

th‘OF.-'Vfi '

- .
.5..y.‘tt our.

‘...‘~..

I

a? 11"

any.

‘
would

':.=':‘er

"l'.

b—‘
s—-v

‘-

‘Y :r-x‘uj
I -I

1.0-‘vhhs-y u. ..

|
I.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Purpose of this Study . . 7
Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . 9
Method . . . . . . . . . . 9
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . 10
Definition of Terms . . . 11
Organization of the Following Chapters. . 14
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . 16
Trends in School District Reorganiza-
tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Trends of Individual States- . . . . 20
Reorganization as a Recent Problem . . 24
Causes of Reorganization . . . . . . . . 25
Financial Implications . . . . . . . . 27
Improved Transportation . . . . . . . 35
Delaying Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Loss of Local Control . . . . . . . . 38
Lack of Leadership . . . . . . . . . . 42
Results of Reorganization . . . . . 44
Adequacy as a Goal of Reorganization . . 54
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

iv

 

m n O
stat. Cu .K»
.\ VIA
tau. DD

A...\~

ETC”.
IN ‘-'

A“
‘ «\

Chapter
III.

IV.

V.

AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION
BY STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . .

States That Have Made Notable Reorganiza-

tion Progress

States That Have Had Limited Reorganiza-

tion Progress . . . . . . . . .

County Units
Summary .

EVOLUTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION
IN MICHIGAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Origin of School Districts.

The First Legislature

The Pierce Plan .

Special Act School Districts

Union School Districts

Secondary Education

Graded School District Act

Continued Progress

Further Consolidation .

Dissolution and Annexation .

Recommendations for Consolidation

Upper Peninsula Township Act

Recommendations for Minimum Standards.

Tax for Transportation and Tuition .

Increasing Population

Significant Legislation

Rural Agricultural School District
Act . . . . .

Community School Districts . .

Michigan Public Education Study
Commission . . . . . . . . . . . .

Primary Districts

Area Studies Program .

Reorganization Progress

Mandatory Legislation

Public Act 289

Summary
AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC ACT 289

Evolution of Public Act 289

V

Page

66

68

90
94
101

104

104

107
107
109
110
113
114
118
121
122
123
127
128
131
132
134

135
139

142
143
144
146
148
152

152
157
157

 

TI

Chapter Page

Description of the Legislation . . . . . 158
State Committee . . . . . . . . . .-. 159
Intermediate Committee . . . . . . . . 161
Voting Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Philosophy of the Legislation . ... . . . 163
Responsibility for School District

Reorganization . . . . . . . . . . 163
Cooperative Approach . . . . 164
Characteristics of the Legislation . . 165

Factors Stimulating Reorganization . . . 166

Restrictions in the Legislation . . . . . 167

Problems Encountered in Reorganization. . 168

Types of School Districts and Reorganiza-
tion . . . 170

Legislation Prior to the Passage of Public
Act 289 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Primary districts . . . . . . . 170
Fourth Glass School District . . . . . 171
Third Glass School District . . . . . 172
Second Class School District . . . . . 172
First Class School District . . . . . 172
Special Act School Districts . . . . . 172
Numbers of Districts . . . . . . . . . 173
Reorganization Legislation . . . . . . 173
Status of School Districts . . . . . . . 175
Results of the Legislation . . . . . . . 177
Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Intermediate Plans . . . . . . . . . . 178
Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Election Results . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Status of Intermediate School Districts . 192

Significance of Act 289 . . . . . . . 194
Adequate School Districts . . . .‘. . 199
Future Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 203
Conclusions . . . . . . . 205
Implications for Further Research . . . . 212
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

vi

 

filaVI~
H." I

..--v‘\.‘

. .

..

.‘,. a. .

_,uun-V

 

Page

BIBLHOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

vii

U1

1‘

 

T? (f)

Table

l-b

4-b

4-d

LIST OF TABLES

Number of School Districts and Trends, 1932-
1961, United States, by States - Rank in
Number of School Districts . . . . . . .

Number of School Districts and Trends, 1932-
1961, United States by States - Rank in
Percent of Increase . . . . . .

Trends in the Number of School Districts

Whole Number of School Districts, Including
All Kinds, That Were Reported Each Year
From 1836 to 1880 . . . . . . . .

Growth of the Graded School Districts From
1859 to 1880 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Status of Intermediate School Districts That

Have Not Had Reorganization Plans Approved,
July 1, 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Well Organized Intermediate School Districts
in Michigan. No Election Required Under
Provisions of Public Act 289 . . . . . . . .

Michigan Intermediate Districts With Method
No. 1 Elections Completed or Pending,

July 1, 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Michigan Intermediate Districts With Method
No. 2 Elections Completed or Pending,

July 1, 1966 .

Summary of Reorganization Activities Under
Provisions of Public Act 289 to July 1, 1966

Number of School Districts 1956-66

viii

Page

29

30
31

111

116

179

180

182

187

195
201

.. ‘ _
ClSLIlC:

 

m

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Problem

The person who ignores the recent history of school
district reorganization in the United States is missing
a movement that has already had, and will continue to have
a profound effect on American Public Education. This study
grows out of the fact that there has been and is continuing
to be a general movement in Michigan and throughout the
country to consolidate and expand school districts. The
problem of school district reorganization is very complex.
It is affected by rapidly increasing enrollments, lack of
funds, and a shortage of well-qualified school people.
The problem is further complicated by changing educational
needs, by the demands of the public for a more adequate
educational program and by America's long established tra-
<iition of local control over education.

Many pe0p1e feel that school district reorganiza-
tion has been carried out too slowly, and they suggest
'that much more consolidation of school districts will be

1

aAF"

uh. "I r-
._ 0.15 ..

 

necessary before adequate programs can be offered in all
schools and equal education can be provided for all chil-
dren. Others maintain that reorganization has occurred
at a far too rapid rate. They fear central control, in-
creased taxes, loss of individual attention for pupils,
and a loss of local control.

There is general agreement that all children
should have equal and adequate educational Opportunities;
yet it is obvious that many school districts still do not
offer adequate educational services. The problem is to
discover a means of reorganizing school districts in such
a way that adequate educational programs will be offered

to all children without loss of basic, long established,

democratic principles.

Need for the Study

There is a concern over the lack of fundamental
research into the procedures and effects of school dis-
trict reorganization. Institutions other than the school
“want to know how it will influence their programs. The
Church, for example, due to its interest in youth pro-
.grams, can quite justifiably raise questions concerning
'the impact of school district reorganization on its ef—

fiorts. On the other hand, business enterprises are

,-
-p o
"D n l
[‘5‘ -Al‘.
:‘a“'9’9
gavu‘J-‘b"

flyarnq cu;- .

o
1 s ‘
— —

'9'.
O
H
(D
(1.
(:
'_ _

:21 t_,}
‘1) f—‘-
I (1)
fl
"1
,—-‘ H -

 

 

concerned over the possibility of important trade and ser-
vice shifts. The goal is to determine how to bring about
adequate reorganization in a way which will minimize nega-
tivism and person disorganization on the part of those
affected by reorganization.1

In many cases, proponents of school district re-
organization overlook the real facts of redistricting and
claim erroneously that district consolidation will neces-
sarily result in reduced costs to the taxpayers involved,
rather than improved educational programs in ratio to the
additional dollars expended; guarantee academically supe-
rior and socially better—adjusted products than those of
non-consolidated districts.2 Thus, reorganization of
school districts is sometimes referred to as a panacea
for educational problems, but it can have disadvantages
as well as advantages. Reeves has stated,

A proper reorganization of local school dis-

tricts is one of the most important needs for
the provision of adequate public elementary and

1Roy C. Buck, ”School District Reorganization:
Some Considerations for Sociological Research." Jour-
3131 of Educational Sociology, (September, 1954) pp. 28.

2Orley W. Wilcox, "Misconceptions About School
IDistrict Reorganization." American School Board Jour—
Inal, (April, 1959) pp. 24-26.

SECCD

17.6 U

-—a

xhaol d1
are stil!
they req‘
shanges.
tier inf
prcper r

a philos

 

secondary schools in practically all state of
the union.

The paramount reason for considering school dis-
trict reorganization is to increase educational opportu-
nities for boys and girls. Many changes have occurred in
school districts throughout the country, but some children
are still not getting the kind of educational programs
they require. There is imperative need for additional
changes. Many states, including Michigan, must have fur-
ther information and direction to determine effective and
proper reorganization procedures. Reorganization without
a philosophy must be avoided.

As_stated by the AASA Committee in 1962, there
are few educational responsibilities with more far-reach-
ing importance to the people of a state than the estab-
lishment of a sound structure for administering the
schools of the local district.2 How to keep that structure
adapted to the changing needs of our society has been a
persistent problem in American education. It is necessary

to determine the present status of school district

—_

. 1H. A. Dawson and Floyd W. Reeves, Your School
I31strict. Department of Rural Education (Washington,
I).C.: National Education Association of the United States,

1948), p. 13.

2Department of Rural Education of the National Edu-
Cation Association, School District Organization (Washing-
tKDn, D.C.: American Association of Sdhbol Administrators,

1962) p. V.

.9».

AI
AV'4
i‘s'nb

.6—
inlet"
196:5 c‘

reorgaz;

.v‘

. .
1".” ”

.‘gz:
55“

crea

~\v s
e .3

. T a 3.149
.
\Ll ‘I t

organization before any intelligent attempt can be made
to assess and propose desirable courses for future action.
The people of Michigan have always been concerned
with methods of providing better education for their
children. The primary method of doing this in the state,
just as throughout the nation, is through school district
reorganization. Reorganization of school districts has
been taking place in Michigan for over 100 years. How—
ever, many school district boundaries are essentially the
same as they were when the districts were originally
formed. Recent data have shown that Michigan's pattern
of school district organization is inadequate to meet the
needs of modern education.1 Therefore, it should be im-
proved in order to better equalize educational opportu-
nities throughout the state. The most comprehensive
legislation concerning reorganization in Michigan was
created in 1964 when an act was passed by the legislature
which provided for the formation of a state committee and
county committees to study and make recommendations for
the reorganization of Michigan school districts. The cur-

rent emphasis on reorganization of school districts,

‘_

1Annual Report, Division of Administrative Ser-
vices, Department of Education, State of Michigan, July,
1965.

taken no

5::e int:

 

 

particularly in Michigan since the passage of Public Act
289 of 1964, creates a special need for this research.
Under Public Act 289 many school districts have
been reorganized very efficiently. However, others have
taken no action or have reorganized ineffectively. In
some intermediate districts where reorganization has
been considered successful, and particularly in those
districts which have opposed reorganization, great criti-
cism of the legislation and reorganization procedures is
being heard. A few school districts are even failing to
follow the precepts determined by reorganization elec-
tions. An organized group called "The Friends of Michigan
Schools" have launched a drive to halt Michigan's school
reorganization program. As a result of the preceding
activities, many people are confused about the purposes
of reorganization and are suspicious of those promoting
reorganization. Name calling, rumors, ill feelings, and
litigation are occurring. These activities are not only
hindering reorganization but are also creating difficul-
ties in school districts where reorganization has been
successful or has not previously been a problem. Hope-
fully, this study will solve some of the mysteries sur-

rounding reorganization and will help people to reason

logically about reorganization of their school districts

rather than emotionally.

Purpose of this Study

Educational history is of paramount value if for
no other reason than the fact that it records the vary-
ing degrees of success achieved by experimenters in the
field. The successes show the avenues for future explora—
tion while the failures very often guard the unwary from
any further waste of energy in the wrong direction. In
the belief that a retrospective and current view of the
progress of reorganization in the state of Michigan would
be conducive to the establishment of a philosophy and
proper procedures for school district reorganization,

this study has been prepared.

This study includes a review of school district
reorganization procedures and trends in Michigan and
throughout the nation. The primary purpose of this study
has been to survey the history and trends of school dis-
trict reorganization in the state of Michigan and the
<3vents that have led to current school district reorga-
Ilization legislation. Particular emphasis has been
:Eocused on a description of Public Act 289 of 1964 and

‘the effects it has had on school districts in the state.

Michi an's reor anization ro ress has been evaluated
8 8 P 8

and compared to that of the nation and to selected states.

On the basis of an analysis of Michigan's school district

reorganization history and results of the current legis-

lation, predictions and recommendations have been made.

This study has attempted to answer the following

questions:

1.

What has been the pattern of school district re-
organization in the state of Michigan?

What has been the nationwide pattern?

What type of legislation has been used in Michi-
gan to bring about reorganization of school
districts?

What type of legislation has been used in other
states to bring about reorganization?

What type of legislation has been the most effec-
tive in Michigan and throughout the nation?

How does Michigan's pattern of school district
reorganization compare to the nation and to other
states?

What are the expressed purposes of reorganiza-
tion?

What factors have been cited as hindrances to

reorganization?

 

sChOoj

for a:

9. What have been the effects of Act 289 in Michigan?
10. What is the future of reorganization in Michigan?
11. What additional legislation should be proposed

pertaining to school district reorganization?

Significance of the Study

There have been several research studies concerned
with the reorganization of school districts. However,
there are still many questions to be answered about this
topic, and no one has analyzed the effects of Public Act
289 in the state of Michigan. This study includes infor-
mation for the use of the state board of education, and
the state department of education. It should be signifi-
cant to those committee members and professional people
studying reorganization as well as to those citizens and
children in school districts who will be affected by it.
It should be especially valuable to those individuals
who are charged with the preparation of further legisla-

tion affecting the reorganization of school districts.

Method

In an attempt to determine trends and causes of
sschool district reorganization and the arguments both

:for and against reorganization an analysis of the literature

10

is presented. Also shown are the pattern and progress
of reorganization in the entire nation and in individual
states. A general history of the establishment and re-
organization of Michigan school districts is presented
along with a description of legislation affecting re-
organization, and comparisons are made to the national
pattern as well as to selected states. Public Act 289
or 1964 is described and the effects of it analyzed. In
the final chapter are discussed the successes and fail-
ures of Michigan's reorganization procedures, the factors
which have impeded and those which have implemented
school district reorganization in Michigan, and recom-

mendations for the improvement of Michigan's school

district pattern.

Limitations of the Study

A complete study of school district reorganiza-
tion in Michigan covering the entire state and a period
well over 100 years from the early 1800's to 1966 would
be an overwhelming task. Therefore, it has been neces-
sary to restrict the scope of this dissertation for the
sake of the reader as well as the writer. Consequently,
'this study is limited to the following factors: (1) a
tiescription of the literature pertaining to school dis-

1trict reorganization, (2) a survey of school district

Q3; historica

rezrga 1223th

he
\m
T?
In

11

reorganization progress and procedures as reported by the
chief state school officer of each of the fifty states,
(3) historical background of Michigan's school district
reorganization pattern and the legislation affecting it,
(4) a description and analysis of Public Act 289 and the
effects of it on Michigan's school districts.

This study is further limited by the fact that
the data collected concerning school districts in the

early years is limited and many times inconsistent.

Definition of Terms

 

Several key terms require definition.

Adequacy

 

An adequate system of school organization is one
which combines maximum economy with maximum opportunity
for a professional level of teaching. Pupil enrollment,
tax base, and geographical size are all factors in deter-

mining adequacy.

Trend

 

This term refers to the increase or reduction in
the numbers of school districts both in a nationwide and
an individual state pattern, and the number of pupils in

districts.

School District

 

This term refers to a legally recognized school

system under the state school code.

12

High School District

 

This is a public school administrative unit in
Michigan which offers twelve or thirteen years of educa-
tion from the first grade or kindergarten through the

twelfth grade.

Non-highfiSchool District

 

This term refers to a school district that
operates less than a kindergarten or first grade through

twelfth grade program.

Receiving_District

 

This term refers to a district which accepts and
provides education services for pupils from one or more

school districts.

Sending District

 

This is a school district which sends some or
all of its pupils to some other district for educational

services.

County Unit

 

This term refers to a school district that is
organized as an administrative unit coterminously with

the political lines of the county.

13

Reorganization

 

This means the formation of new school districts,
the alteration of boundaries of established school dis-
tricts, and the dissolution or disorganization of estab-
lished school districts through or by means of any one or

combination of methods.

Consolidation

 

This is the legal procedure by which two or more
school districts join together to form a larger district.
Two or more high school districts are involved or no high

school district may be involved.

Annexation

 

This is the legal procedure by which one school

district joins or is attached to another school district.

Reorganization Legislation

 

This term means the procedures for reorganization

of school districts as provided by law.

Local Control

 

This term refers to the administration and Opera-
tion of a school district under a governing body composed

of local residents.

14

State Committee

 

This means the state committee for the reorganiza-
tion of school districts created by Public Act 289 of

1964.

Intermediate Committee

 

This term refers to the single or multi-county
committee formed for the reorganization of school dis-

tricts under Public Act 289.

Organization of the FollowingChapters

 

Chapter II pertains to a review of related litera-
ture. The material covered includes the trends in school
district reorganization, causes of reorganization, bar-
riers to reorganization, results of reorganization pro-
grams, and adequacy as a goal of reorganization.

Chapter III is devoted to a national survey of
school district reorganization based on data collected
from the education office of each state.

In Chapter IV the history of school district re-
organization in Michigan and the legislation that pertains
to reorganization in Michigan is reviewed.

In Chapter V a description and analysis of Public

Act 289 and a description of the effects this legislation

has had and may have on school districts is presented.

15

Chapter VI contains the summaries of the study,

conclusions, and recommendations.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Trends in School District Reorganization

 

Certain definite trends can be observed in any
review of the literature regarding school district re-
organization. Several writers agree that one of the
most pronounced recent trends in the organization of
American Public Education has been the consolidation of
school districts. Norman indicated this movement has
reversed the direction of efforts of the previous 100
years, when the trend was always toward the extension
of educational opportunity by the creation of new School
districts.1

The N.E.A. Research Division pointed out that
the U. S. Office of Education records show there have
been significant changes in sizes of schools and admini-

2

strative units from 1930 to 1952. In 1930 there were

 

1Loyal V. Norman, A Slice of Nevada School Re-
organization, (Philadelphia: Durance and Company, 1964)

p. 3.

 

2National Education Association Research Division,
N.E.A. Research Memo, (Washington, D.C.: National Educa-
tibn Association, I963) p. 7.

16

 

17
149,282 one-teacher schools in the United States. By

1940 this number had declined 23.9 percent to 113,600;
in 1952 there were 50,742 one-teacher schools left, a
decline since 1930 of 66.0 percent. In 1956 there were
35,000 one-teacher schools left.

The N.E.A.'s figures were corroborated in the
Rural School Survey Report.1 In 1931-32 there were
127,530 administrative school units according to the
Rural School Survey Report. Most of these districts
were small. By 1948 over 25,000, or one-fifth of these
districts, had been reorganized into larger districts;
by 1953, five years later, nearly half of the original
number had gone; by 1958, after another five years, the
total number had been reduced to 48,036. Thus, in the
twenty-six years from 1932 to 1958, nearly two-thirds of
the school districts had succumbed to consolidation and
reorganization of one type or another.

The trend in the decrease of the number of school
districts, shown by the Survey Report, was very uneven
both in point of time and by geographic area. The great-
est period of school district organization occurred during
the five year period from 1948 to 1953, when the total

number of school districts was reduced by 36.7 percent.

 

1U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Small Schools Are Growing Larger, A Statistical Appraisal,
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959)
p. 12.

18

But the elimination of small school districts was also
great from 1953 to 1958, with a reduction during those
five years of 28.4 percent.1

During the two years preceding 1954 the number
of school districts in the United States had been reduced
by more than 7,000. McIntyre conducted a survey on Novem-
ber l, 1951 which revealed that there were 72,637 basic
school administrative units in the nation. The corres-
ponding figure he found for November 1, 1953 was 65,294.2

The comparison of reductions in numbers of school
districts did not carry the implication that the result-
ing units were equally adequate. In terms of numbers
alone, however, the redistricting pace during the two
years had not been as rapid as it was during the period
from 1949 to 1951, when approximately 15,000 districts
were eliminated.3

Dawson and Isenberg found that a total of 3,929

reorganizations of all types were proposed during the

 

1U.S. Department of Health, Education and Wel-
fare, Small Schools Are GrowingLarger, A Statistical
A raisaI, (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Print-
1ng Office, 1959), p. 12.

2Kenneth B. McIntyre, "Progress and Problems of
Redistricting" American School Board Journal 128: (March,
1954), p. 38-40.

3

 

 

Ibid.

19

1 Of that number 967 were

three year period 1955 to 1958.
comprehensive and 2,962 were partial. Of all the pro-
posals, eighty-one percent were adopted by the voters or
designated officials; of the proposals for comprehensive
reorganization, eighty-six and four-tenths percent were
adopted, and for partial, eighty percent were adopted.
Gaumnitqurepared an article in 1959 pertaining
to the decrease and increase of independent school dis-
tricts. The purpose of the article was to examine these
two contradictory movements statistically. The two con-
tradictory movements referred to are the decrease of the
number of school districts and the increase of the size
of them. iMr.Gaumnitz found that the total number of
school districts in the United States with enrollments
of less than 600 decreased by 30.1 percent from 1953 to
1957 and that the districts with over 600 pupils enrolled
increased 42.6 percent. He further found that the total
pupils enrolled in these districts of less than 600 pupils

decreased 31.7 percent while those enrolled in districts

with more than 600 increased 34.7 percent.2

 

1Howard A. Dawson and Robert M. Isenberg, "Status
Report on District Reorganization." School Executive 78:
(February, 1959), p. 75-76.

2Walter H. Gaumnitz, "Independent School Districts
Decrease and Increase," School Life, 42 (December, 1959),
Pp. 14-17.

 

 

20

Bruce found that during 1959-1960, the reduction
of school districts was negligible.1 According to his
findings there was need in all states, especially those
with medium sized and large cities, for a complete re-

organization and consolidation of school districts.

Trends in Individual States

 

Several writers have conducted studies of indi-
vidual states and have shown how the trend in various
states compares with the national trend of enlarging the
sizes and decreasing the number of school districts.

Norman described one of the most drastic reduc-
tions of school districts which took place in the state
of Nevada when 186 school districts were abolished in
1956, and in their place the Nevada Assembly created
seventeen county districts. He found numerous problems
connected with the reorganization, but also found that
education was generally improved by the change.2

Hamlin and Sumption explained that Illinois in
1945 had about 12,000 school districts. Over 8,000 of

those districts provided one-room schools as the only

 

.Efliiliam C. Bruce, "Is District Reorganization

Halted?" American School Board Journal, 141 (December,
1960), p. 34.

 

ZNorman, op. cit., p. l

 

21

facilities for education. At that time there were over
600 high school districts superimposed on elementary
districts, providing secondary educational Opportunities
for elementary graduates. Various other types of dis-
tricts made up the total. By 1949, well over 200 com-
munity unit districts had been created. These districts
superseded and eliminated over 5,000 existing districts.
The areas included in the new community unit districts
varied from four to 387 square miles. Their enrollments
ranged from 200 to over 4,500 pupils.1

The Maine School District Commission reported
that reorganization in Maine had been effective in the
reduction of the number Of small high schools; of the
ninety-two schools with fewer than 100 pupils Operating
in 1957, only forty-seven schools Of this size were in
existence in 1963.2

It was noted by Campbell and Garofalo that Ohio
had 1,354 school districts in 1953. Of this number 934

Offered both the elementary and high school programs.

*

. 1H. M. Hamlin and M. R. Sumption, New Community
9&1? School Districts, Practices and Problems,(Urbana,
111111015: University Of Illinois, 1951), p. 1.

 

2Maine School District Commission, Six Years of

W 1963, p. 3.

 

22

Of the 420 schools remaining, 404 districts had no high
school and sixteen districts provided their children
with education by sending them to neighboring districts.1
However, through legislation, school district reorganiza-
tion was considered in every county in the state.

The reorganization trend proceeded more slowly
in California and Oklahoma than in many Of the other
states. In 1960, the California Commission on School
district Organization indicated there were 1,683 school
districts in the state, 705 of which had less than 200
units of average daily attendance and Of these, 527 had
less than 100 units of average daily attendance. By
July, 1963, there were 155 unified districts serving
approximately fifty percent Of the pupils in California
from kindergarten through the 12th grade. Kerr explained
that some elimination of districts resulted from state
laws in the early part Of Oklahoma's history, but the
principal results Obtained from annexation by local

elections have been in recent years. The largest number

of school districts in Oklahoma at any one time was

 

1Roald F. Campbell and Marius P. Garofalo,
§tudy Guide on School District Organization in Ohio
(Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1954), p.

 

.A.
S
3.

23

5,880 in 1914. Forty-nine years later that number had
been reduced to 1,160.1

Michigan's school district reorganization also
followed an interesting pattern. The Rural Michigan
Commission described Michigan's schOOl district organi-
zation in 1942.2 The number Of districts had gradually
increased from fifty-five in 1835 tO a maximum number,
in any year, of 7,362 in 1912. After that date the num-
ber slowly decreased each year. The Michigan School
Facilities Survey described Michigan's school districts
in 1952:

*Nearly ninety-two percent Of the public school
children in the state were being educated by less than
eleven percent Of the school districts.

*More than one-fifth Of the public school children
of the state were attending school in overcrowded, make-
shift, or otherwise unsatisfactory buildings.

*Nearly forty percent of the existing school

buildings were erected prior to 1900, and only 6.4 per-

cent had been built between-1945 and 1951.

 

1Clay W. Kerr, "School District Reorganization in
Oklahoma," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Oklahoma, 1960).

2Michigan Department of Public Instruction,
Rural Michigan (1942), p. 13.

24

*Twenty percent Of Michigan's school districts
had closed their schools and were purchasing their
children's education elsewhere.

*More than half of Michigan's school districts,
53.6 percent, were Operating one-room schools enrolling
less than six percent Of the state's public school
children.

By February 1, 1953, two-thirds of the local
school service areas Of Michigan were in the process of

studying the need for adequate facilities.1

Reorganization as a Recent Problem

 

Numerous writers have suggested that school dis-
trict reorganization has become a problem only in recent
years. Chisholm describes school district reorganiza-
tion as having emerged as a major problem only recently,
although there was a sharply increased demand for high
school education immediately after World War I which led

to unprecedented numbers Of high schools being constructed.2

 

1Michigan Department Of Public Instruction, A
Report of the Pro ress of the School Facilities Survey
iniMiEhigan (Lan51ng: Michigan Department Of Pfiblic In-
struction: April, 1953), p. 7.

 

 

 

2Leslie T. Chisholm, School District Reor aniza-
tion (Chicago: The Midwest Administration Center, Un1-
versity of Chicago, July, 1957), p. V.

25

Cole and others agree that school district reorganization
developed momentum since World War II to meet the challenge
of increased enrollments.1

Benton stated that it was not until after the
second World War that the educational system of Missouri
entered a new era, an era in which the watchwords were

"consolidation and foundation financing."2

Causes of Reorganization

 

The growth of population and increased demand
for education as causes of school district reorganiza-
tion are mentioned more often than any other factors.
Dawson and Reeves point to changes in social and econo-
mic life as having created demands for longer school
terms, greater number of years spent in school, enrichment
and expansion Of curriculum as leading toward larger units

of school administration.3 Campbell and Garofalo

 

lEverett Sickler Cole, "The History Of Public
Elementary Education in Wichita, Kansas from 1871 to
1963." (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Colorado State
College, 1964).

2Edwin Joseph Benton, "A History of Public Educa-
tion in Missouri, 1760-1964,: (unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, St. Louis University, 1965), p. 43.

3H. A. Dawson, Floyd W. Reeves, Op. cit., pp. 27-30.

26

indicated that school district reorganization was given
impetus in Ohio when the tremendous concern Of the peo-
ple of Ohio to provide better education for their
children was recognized.1 The AASA School District Re-
organization Committee stated there has been an insistent
demand to add depth, breadth, and quality to the educa-
tional program, and that school district reorganization
has been maintained in every state for the fundamental
purpose of dealing wisely and well with this and other
administrative problems.2 Hansford and others described
the American concept Of "Education for All" along with
the tremendous birth rates in recent years, as having
forced school district reorganization in many areas.3
The committee referred to the fact that boys and girls
are staying in school longer today than ever before in
history. At the turn Of the century, only ten or eleven

percent Of the boys and girls Of high school age were

 

1Campbell and Garofalo, op. cit., p. 22.

 

2American Association of School Administrators,
School District Or anization, National Education Associa-
tion, Washington, D.C., I958.

 

3College Of Education, Michigan State University,
School District Reorganization, (East Lansing: Bureau of
Research and Service, I956) p. 3.

 

27

enrolled in public schools while today about eighty per-
cent Of that age group attends school.

McIntyre explained that school district reorgani-
zation is not a cure-all; it does not carry with it an
unconditional guarantee Of good schools, but sound
reorganization can be counted on to remove many obsta-
cles that rob a large percentage of America's children

of their right to receive a model education.l

Financial Implications

 

Almost unanimous agreement is found among
authorities that financial support is an outstanding
consideration in school district reorganization. The
National Commission on School Reorganization, Campbell,
Reed, and others subjected the impact Of school finance
programs on school district reorganization to careful
study. Campbell gathered data from Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Washington, Six fi-
nance factors relating to school district reorganization
were evaluated:

1. General aid

2. Equalization aid

3. Capital-outlay costs

1Kenneth E. McIntyre, "The Kind of Schools We
Need" Phi Delta Kappan, 128 (March, 1951), p. 320.

 

28

4. Payment for pupil transportation

5. Payment of tuition for non-resident pupils

6. Disposition Of the assets and liabilities Of

former districts1

Chisholm, Cushman, Campbell, Reed, and others
agreed on five findings Of a rather general nature con-
cerning the relation between a state and local finance
program and the reorganization Of school districts.
Chisholm presents these relationships as follows:

1. The program Of state and local supportfor the
schools has a close relation tO school district
reorganization. It is apparent, therefore,
that the school finance program should be geared
to the need for achieving the prOper school dis-
trict organizational structure.

2. State support systems, by certain features they
contain, Often help the poorly organized, inef-
ficient school districts to the extent that an
undesirable structure Of local school district
organization frequently is perpetuated.

3. The effects Of a finance factor on redistricting
depend almost entirely on the specific nature of
the legislation pertaining to this factor and its
relation to the total program of state and local
support for the schools.

4. In many cases, the amount of money appropriated
for a given feature Of the school finance program
is at least as important as the particular fea-
ture itself.

 

1Charles E. Campbell, "The Relationship of School
Finance to the Reorganization Of Local Administrative

Units," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of
Nebraska, 1953).

Number of School Districts and Trends,

29

TABLE l-A

1932-1961, United States, by States

 

 

 

 

Rank in Number
States Number Of School Districts Of School Districts
1932 1948 1953 1961 1932 1948 1953 1961
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Alabama 112 108 111 114 42 41 40 38
Alaska 17 23 28 30 49 49 48 47
Arizona 500 322 329 297 28 30 27 26
Arkansas 3,193 1,589 423 418 15 19 25 24
California 3,589 2,429 2,018 1,650 13 15 14 8
Colorado 2,041 1,884 1,147 341 21 l7 19 25
Connecticut 161 174 172 176 39 36 35.5 32
Delaware 126 126 115 92 40 39 39 41
Dist. Of Columbia 1 l l 1 50.5 50.5 50 5 50.5
Florida 67 67 67 67 44 43.5 43.5 42 5
Georgia 272 189 203 199 33 35 33 31
Hawaii 1 l 1 1 50.5 50.5 50.5 50 5
Idaho 1,418 1,011 216 118 24 24 32 7
Illinois 12,070 11,061 2,607 1,552 l 23 10 9
Indiana 1,292 1,196 1,144 888 25 22 20 1“
Iowa 4,870 4,856 4,558 1,391 12 9 5 11
Kansas 8,748 5,643 3,903 2,303 4 6 7 4
Kentucky 384 256 227 207 31 32 31 30
Louisiana 66 67 67 67 45 43.5 43.5 43.5
Maine 518 493 491 462 27 27 24 31
Maryland 24 24 24 24 48 48 49 48
Massachusetts 355 351 351 438 32 29 26 23
Michigan 6,965 5,434 4,736 1,981 9 7 4 5
Minnesota 7,773 7,606 5,298 2,420 6 2 3 3
Mississippi 5,560 4,194 1,417 150 10 11 16 35
Missouri 8,764 8,422 4,331 1,735 3 l 6 7
Montana 2,439 6,800 1,201 1,025 17 4 18 15
Nebraska 7,344 6,991 6,276 3,348 8 3 l 1
Nevada 266 211 185 17 35 34 34 49
New Hampshire 244 239 235 230 36 33 30 28
New Jersey 552 561 557 588 26 26 22 19
New Mexico 98 104 100 99 43 42 42 40
New York 9,467 4,609 2,961 1,280 2 10 9 12
North Carolina 200 172 172 173 37 37 35.5 33
North Dakota 2,228 2,267 2,111 1,066 l9 16 13 14
Ohio 2,043 1,583 1,365 840 20 20 17 18
Oklahoma 4,933 2,664 1,888 1,255 ll 13 15 13
Oregon 2,234 1,363 893 510 18 21 21 20
Pennsylvania 2,587 2,540 2,502 956 16 14 11 16
Rhode Island 39 39 39 41 47 47 47 45
South Carolina 1,792 1,737 103 109 22.5 18 41 39
South Dakota 3,433 3,409 3,385 2,964 14 12 8 12
Tennessee 194 150 150 154 38 38 37 34
Texas 7,932 5,145 2,146 1,539 5 8 12 10
Utah 40 40 4O 40 46 46 46 46
Vermont 268 268 263 262 34 31 29 27
Virginia 125 125 127 131 41 40 38 36
Washington 1,792 628 551 419 22.5 25 23 23
West Virginia 450 55 55 55 29 45 45 44
Wisconsin 7,662 6,385 5,463 1,967 7 5 2 6
Wyoming 400 359 322 212 30 28 28 29
Grand Total 127,649 105,971 67,075 36,402

Source:

Education Association.
Must Not End.

 

Washington, D.C.:

 

1962.

American Association of School Administrators and Department of Rural
School District Organization; Journey that
The Association,

. a...
. ..d
“3.1.313 ‘ .
.

1. L . .1 A ,
‘ ,.aa
Q
. ..4 -
nu.
.
.4-i A.‘-J§

 

 

‘fissad’mseztg
Vicizgan ~.
A

‘J.
O
"1

1t) -
ZJ

 

( l

('1

n“ ‘ "
m ’1‘ .1 9'4 )—4

._., .., w- gull
(b L
.1
LJ
_:v

(h
.~--:
g.
m

30

TABLE 1-B
Number of School Districts and Trends, 1932-1961,
Decrease in School Districts

United States, by States
Rank in % of Decrease

 

 

 

 

 

l932~48 1948-53 1953-61

No. % No. % No. % ~48 53 -61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Alabama 4 3.6 +3 +2 8 +3 +2.7 28 38 39
Alaska +6 +35.3 +5 +21.7 +2 +7.1 41 40 43
Arizona 178 35.6 +7 +2.2 32 9.7 7 37 27
Arkansas 1,604 50.2 1,166 73.4 5 1.2 4 5 34
California 1,160 32.2 411 16.9 368 18.2 11 15 24
Colorado 157 7.7 737 39.1 806 70.3 22 9 3
Connecticut +13 +8.1 2 1.1 +4 +2.3 40 33 38
Delaware 0 0.0 11 8.7 23 20.0 — 24 23
Dist. of Col. 0 - 0 - - - - - -
Florida 0 0.0 0 - - - - - -
Georgia 83 30.5 +14 +7.4 4 2.0 12 39 33
Hawaii 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 - — -
Idaho 407 28.7 795 78.6 98 45.4 13 3 13
Illinois 1,009 8.4 8,454 76.4 1,055 40.5 21 4 16
Indiana 96 7.4 52 4.3 256 22.4 23 28 22
Iowa 14 3 298 6.1 3,167 69.5 35 27 4
Kansas 3,105 35.5 1 740 30.8 1,600 41.0 8 12 15
Kentucky 128 33.3 29 11.3 20 8.8 10 21 28
Louisana +1 +1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 36 0 -
Maine 25 4.8 2 0.4 29 5.9 26 35 29
Maryland 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0
Massachusetts 4 1.1 0 0.0 +87 +24.8 34 0 44
Michigan 1,531 22.0 698 12.8 2,755 58.2 17 18 8
Minnesota 167 2.1 2,308 30.3 2,878 54.3 31 13 10
Mississippi 1 366 24.6 2,777 66.2 1,267 89.4 14 6 2
Missouri 342 3.9 4,091 48.6 2,596 59.9 27 8 7
Montana +4,361 +178.8 5,599 82.3 176 14.7 42 2 25
Nebraska 353 4.8 715 10.2 2,928 46.7 29 23 2
Nevada 55 20.7 26 12.3 168 90.8 25 19. 1
New Hampshire 5 2.0 4 1.7 5 2.1 32 31 32
New Jersey +9 +1.6 4 0.7 +31 +5.6 37 34 41
New Mexico +6 +6.1 4 3.8 1 1.0 39 29 35
New York 4,858 51.3 1 648 35.8 1,681 56.8 3 10 9
North Carolina 28 14.0 0 0.0 +1 +0.6 19 0 37
North Dakota +39 +1.8 156 6.9 1,045 49.5 38 26 11
Ohio 460 22.5 218 13.8 525 38.5 16 17 17
Oklahoma 2 269 46.0 776 29.1 633 33.5 5 14 19
Oregon 871 39.0 470 34.5 383 42.9 6 11 14
Pennsylvania 47 1.8 38 1.5 1,546 61.8 33 32 6
Rhode Island 0 0.0 0 0.0 +2 +5.1 0 0 40
80. Carolina 55 3.1 1 634 94.1 +6 +5.8 30 1 42
So. Dakota 24 0.7 24 0.7 421 12.4 24 25 26
Tennessee 44 22.7 0 0.0 +4 2.7 15 0 31
Texas 2,787 35.1 2 999 58.3 607 28.3 9 7 20
Utah 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 O 0 0
Vermont 0 0.0 5 1.9 1 0.4 0 30 36
Virginia 0 0.0 +2 +1.6 +4 3.1 0 36 30
Washington 1,164 65.0 77 12.3 132 24.0 2 19. 21
W. Virginia 395 87.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 l 0 0
Wisconsin 1,277 16.7 922 14.4 3,496 64.0 18 16 5
Wyoming 41 10.2 37 10.3 110 34.2 20 22 18
Grand Total 21,678 16.98 38,896 36.70 30,673 45.73 - - -

Source: American Association of School Administrators and Department of Rural
Education Association. School District Organizagion; Journey that Must

flg£_§fld. Washington, D. C. The Association,

 

Tren:

 

 

193

194

 

1943
1953

ij

31

TABLE l-C

Trends in the Number of School Districts

 

 

 

 

Year Number of School
Districts

1932 127,649

1948 105,971

1953 67,075

1961 36,402

Number and Percent of Decrease in the Number of School
Districts for Various Periods

 

 

 

Years Number ' Percent of
Decrease
1932-48 21,678 16.98
1948-53 38,896 36.70
1953-61 30,673 45.731

 

Ibid., p. 25.

32

5. Although the findings are not entirely conclusive,
there seems to be a relation between the percent
which state funds are of the total school cost and
the progress made in school district reorganiza-
tion, the progress tending to be greatest in the
states in which the state aid is the highest.1
According to Strolle, no other factor has a

greater influence on the reorganization of school dis-
tricts than the financing of the local program.2 He
recommended in his 1955 study that the pattern of school
districts in Michigan should be changed to make it pos-
sible to better use the financial resources of the state.
The effect of reorganization on taxes was consi-
dered in numerous studies. An Illinois study indicated
that one aspect of the trend in the formation of community
unit districts is that more and more attention has been
given to pupil population and to an adequate tax base.
Hamlin and Sumption agreed, as they indicated that re-
organization meant raising taxes in some areas and
lowering them in others, but the net result was a more

nearly fair distribution of the school tax burden and

the elimination of a number of "protected" districts.3

 

1Leslie T. Chisholm, School District Reorganiza-
tion, (Chicago: The Midwest Administration Center,
University of Chicago, July, 1957) p. 6.
0

2Roland s. Strolle, "A Study of School District
Reorganization in Michigan," (unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Michigan State University, 1955).

 

3Hamlin and Sumption, op. cit., p. 21.

 

33

The Rural Michigan Commission concluded that an entire
community had a greater right to the tax revenues from
real estate, oil wells, power dams, and other public
utilities than any small section of a community.1 Kerr
took somewhat of a different view, as he concluded that
one of the strongest reasons for opposition to school
reorganization was fear of additional taxes for new
buildings and transportation facilities.2

There is a great deal of agreement among writers
that school district reorganization provides more effi-
cient expenditures. The Maine and Minnesota School
District Commissions both stated that human resources
are much better prepared in larger schools and the cost
per pupil is less.3 The Wisconsin Committee showed that
the legislature attempted to solve tax problems caused
by low valuation and small pupil enrollments through

reorganization legislation.4 Benton explained that one

 

1Michigan Department of Public Instruction,
Rural Michigan, loc. cit.

 

2Kerr, loc. cit.

 

3Maine School District Commission. School Dis-
trict Reorganization in Maine, 1963. p. 5.

4Milwaukee County School Committee. Your Schools.

 

A Plan by the Milwaukee County School Committee for Re-
organizing School Districts. (Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
Milwaukee County School Committee, July, 1950), p. 20.

34

of the major reasons for school reorganization legisla-
tion in Missouri was to provide better financing for
schools,1 and Chisholm agreed as he listed one of the
objectives of reorganization as making possible an effi-
cient expenditure of the taxpayers' money.2

Campbell and Garoalo, Roe, and others agree that
school administrative units that fail at any one of
several points, including school finance, indicate that
organization is not satisfactory and improvement is
needed.3

Bickley reached the following conclusions con-
cerning school support from his study:

When the highest adjusted assessed valuation
per resident pupil is twice the lowest adjusted assessed
valuation within a county school district reorganization

is deterred. Total adjusted assessed valuation varia-

tions between the highest and lowest total adjusted

 

1Edwin Joseph Benton, "A History of Public
Education in Missouri, 1760-1964," (unpublished Ph. D.
dissertation, St. Louis University, 1965)

2Chisholm, op. cit., p. 1.

 

3Charles E. Campbell, loc. cit.

 

35

assessed valuation within the counties do not signifi-

cantly deter school district reorganization.l

Improved Transportation

 

Improved transportation facilities have provided
impetus for school reorganization according to several
authors. Also, reorganization has improved transporta-
tion. Hamlin and Sumption show that reorganization
brought transportation to many children who had walked
to school before.2 The National Commission on School
District Reorganization of 1948 recommended that adequacy
standards for school districts be modified according to
transportation problems.3 The trend toward consolida-
tion of school districts instead of creation of new school
districts to extend educational Opportunity has come about
partly because of the development of all-weather roads
and dependable transportation, according to Norman.4

A perusal of the literature shows that the factor

limiting school size to have received the most attention

 

1Carl B. Bickley, "An Analysis of Selected Factors
Which Aid or Deter School District Reorganization in Cer-
tain Indiana Counties," (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Indiana, 1958).

2Hamlin and Sumption, op. cit., p. 16.
3

 

Dawson and Reeves, op. cit., p. 99.

 

4Norman, op. cit., pp. 6 and 7.

 

36

was the matter of transportation time. Dawson and
Reeves stipulated a maximum travel time of one hour
each way by bus for high school students.1 Grieder and
others used the same maximum.2 Carpenter set a maximum
of from fifty to sixty minutes each way for junior and
senior high school pupils.3

Dawson and Reeves and others described improved
road conditions which made possible the deve10pment of
extensive transportation systems as being a major factor
in increasing the size of attendance units through re-
organization.4 Chisholm, on the other hand, explained
that as means of transportation improved, certain areas
developed the practice of contracting to send their
children to neighboring districts in which high schools

. . 5
were maintained.

This practice spread until in some
states not more than ten percent of the school districts

served all pupils of elementary and high school age

 

1Dawson and Reeves, op. cit., p. 28.

 

2Calvin Greider and Stephen Romine, American
Public Education: An Introduction, second Edition.
(New York: Ronald Press Co., 1955), p. 257.

3William W. Carpenter, "Planning Satisfactory
Local Administrative Districts," Junior College Journal
31: (September, 1960), p. 38.’

 

 

4Dawson and Reeves, op. cit., p. 28.

5Chisholm, op. cit., p. 78.

 

37

within the districts. Reorganization was suggested as

the method of solving this problem.

Delaying Factors

 

Various writers have reviewed factors found to
delay the reorganization of school districts. Those
listed by the N.E.A. Research Commission are as follows:

1. Politically ambitious local-school trustees have
been unwilling to be displaced.

2. False local pride, community acceptance of the
status quo, and resistance to change have com-
bined to block it.

3. Misconceptions of what a reorganized district
would mean have produced unwarranted fears.

4. Cumbersome procedures for reorganization have
obstructed efforts.

5. State school finance structures in some states
have favored small districts.1

Fear ofincreasedCbsts resulting in increased
school taxes was described by Kerr and others as a hind-
rance to school reorganization. The Michigan State
Committee showed this was a justified fear as some school
districts actually have a loss in state aid as a result

. . 2
of reorganization.

 

1"Bigger and Fewer School Districts," National
Education Association Bulletin, 38 (February 1960), pp.
15-17.

 

 

2College of Education, Michigan State University,
9p. cit., p. 15.

38

Bickley discovered when there has been long
tenure of county superintendents, school district re-
organization is deterred;1 it is further deterred when
there has been long tenure of city and town superinten-
dents. He also found some evidence that the existence
of nonpublic schools within the county deters reorgani-
zation, and when a majority of the school corporations
within a county have a high school, school district re-

organization is deterred.

Loss of Local Control

 

The American tradition of local control has been
an obstacle to school district reorganization. Although
public education is legally a function of the several
states, Williams found that the custom of delegating to
local districts the responsibility for establishing and
maintaining public school facilities has been followed
for such a long period of time that it has accumulated
the force of law.2 Hobbs showed that the strength of

this tradition is indicated by the fact that a large

 

1Bickley, loc. cit.

 

zDelos Dale Williams, "Oregon School District
Reorganization of 1957-64 and Implications for Improve-
ment," (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Oregon
State University, 1965).

39

measure of the state legislation relative to school
district reorganization, particularly in the midwest,
is permissive rather than mandatory.1

The following statement is listed in the Cali-

fornia State Department of Education Manual for the

 

Study of School District Organization by County Com-

 

mittees:

The sole aim (in school district reorganiza-
tion is and should be to create school districts
which, under given social and geographic condi-
tions make it possible to provide children the
best educational program. Rather than attempting
to take the schools away from the people, there-
fore, district reorganization aims to strengthen
and preserve the local school district system
with the control of education chiefly in the hands
of the parents.2

The AASA Commission in 1965 found people had the
following fears concerning reorganization:

*Local control will be destroyed.

*The school plant will be taken out of the

neighborhood and the children transported far

away from home.

 

1California State Department of Education,
Manual for the Study of School District Olganization
perounty Committees, (Sacramento, California: Califor-
nia State Department of Education, March, 1962), p. 4.

 

 

2Report of the AASA Commission on School Admini-
stration in Newly Organized Districts, Washington, D.C.,
1965, p. 11.

40

*Parental influence on the children will be
weakened.

*School taxes will increase.

*The close relationships between the home and the
school, which have long been maintained in the
smaller unit, will be destroyed.

*The community itself will be seriously weakened
or destroyed.1

Jacobsen, in a study of three small school dis-

tricts in Idaho, found essentially the same social pro-
cesses and forces Operating. Fears of big schools, of a
lack of belonging, of loss of the school and loss of
”local control" were important hindrances to reorganiza-

tion.2

Alford expressed the idea that a school is both an
organ of the national society, educating its citizens, and
also an important social institution in its local community.
The question of reorganization of school districts exposes
the conflict between these functions of a school: to unify

adjacent districts in the interest of national educational

1Report of the AASA Commission on School Administra-
tion in Newly Organized Districts, Washington D.C., 1965,
p. 11. -

2G. S. Jacobsen, "School District Reorganization in
Selected Counties in Idaho," (unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of California, 1957), pp. 65-66 and 239-247.

41

efficiency may threaten local autonomy and self-esteem.
In this article the problem is analyzed generally, and
exemplified by the case of Calveras County, California.
Alford shows that the conflict of interests is related
to the whole issue of centralization in a modern demo-
cratic society.

Loss of Local control through reorganization was
disputed in a study at the University of California.
E. L. Morphet and J. G. Ross showed that smaller
districts:

1. Do not have more local control; actually they
have less.

2. Small districts can neither get nor hold out-
standing instructors.

3. Costs for smaller schools and districts are
found to be higher than in the larger dis-
tricts. Even per pupil costs are greater.

Goldhammer agreed with Morphet and Ross, as he

pictured the school board as the central functioning

agent for uniting the efforts of the schools and the

desires of the community with the influences of county,

 

1Robert S. Alford, "School District Reorganiza-
tion and Community Integration," Harvard Educational
Review 30: (Fall, 1960), p. 350.

 

2Edgar Morphet and John G. Ross, Local Responsi-
bility for Education in Small School Districts, 1961.
Legislative Problems No. 2,Berkley: University of
California (January, 1961), p. 16.

 

42

state, and federal agencies.1 Hence, his conclusion fol-
lowed that the fewer boards in a particular area, the
greater unification of educational Opportunities for all
children in the area.

The Rural School Survey Committee discovered that
the tradition of local control created a block to reorga—
nization.2 Since by tradition government was achieved
through the town meeting, it was natural that local school
boards should govern local school districts. The school
system which served the American people so well during
the pioneer days is not given. up lightly even though the
economy has changed from agriculture to industry, from
hand production to automation, and from rural living to

urban living.

Lack of Leadership

 

Several studies Of leadership in school district
reorganization have been completed in the midwestern
states. Farley and Janetos agree that a highly complex

series Of leadership activities are involved in a statewide

‘

1Keith Goldhammer, "The Power Structure Behind
the Administration of the Community's Schools," American
§ghool Board Journal, 139 (October, 1959), pp. 27-30.

2Walter H. Gaumnitz, Small Schools Are Growin
Lar er, U. S. Department Of Health, Education and Welgare,
affice Of Education, the Rural School Survey, Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1959, p. 1.

 

43

program of school district reorganization, and that one
Of the major reasons for the persistence of large numbers
of inadequate and ineffective school districts seems to
have been the lack Of effective leadership.1

Roe suggested that the lack of leadership was
another hindrance to reorganization. It was found that
recommending changesijiinstitutions or customs that are
as surrounded by nostalgic memories as the idea of the
"little red school house" is very Often unpopular with
many people. Therefore, few people want to take the lead
in recommending changes in school district organization.
Roe indicated a further hindrance to reorganization as
the lack Of a unified pattern for the accomplishment Of
reorganization which tended to produce competition between
villages and left the establishment of community school
boundaries largely in the hands Of local interest and

pressure groups.2

 

1Melvin Farley, "A Study of Local Level Leader-
ship for School District Reorganization in Nebraska,"
(unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Nebras-
ka, 1953).

2William H. Roe, "Educational Administrative Re-
Organization in Michigan With SpecialReference to Factors
Affecting the Organization Of Community School Districts,"
funpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan,
950).

44

Results Of Reorganization

 

Many studies have been made Of the results of re-
organization and most writers seem to be unanimous in
determining that the results of reorganization have been
positive. A bulletin issued by the United States Office
Of Education in 1953 discussing the educational changes
which had occurred in certain reorganized school districts,
pointed out that the number Of one—teacher schools had
been reduced and that important changes had been made in
both the elementary and secondary curriculums. But the
most significant change was in the higher college level
of preparation from that the staff in the Old district
had at the time Of reorganization.1

Kiesel made the following statement concerning
results Of reorganization in California:

Every study which has been made thus far in

this country has pointed to the desirability Of

unified districts instead Of encouraging separately 2
organized elementary and secondary school districts.

1C. O. Fitzwater, Educational Change in Reor anized
School Districts, U. S. Department of Health, Education aid
WEIfare, Office of Education, Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1953, p. 43.

 

. zFerd J. Kiesel, "Report of Second Conference on
Unlfied School Districts: Advantages and Disadvantages of
the Unified School District," (1953), p. 10.

45

Rosmond, Good, and others described advantages

that were realized in reorganized districts in Maine.

1.

Units of sufficient size to equalize educa-
tional Opportunities have been formed in all
areas not geographically isolated.

School programs have been improved at both
elementary and secondary levels.

A greater uniformity of school taxes has been
achieved.

Public funds expended for the support of
schools are buying a better quality of educa-
tion than was achieved prior to district
organization.l

Taxes during five years had increased only eight

percent as against eleven percent in non-reorganized dis-

tricts. In addition, greatly improved programs and addi-

tional transportation aid had been provided in reorganized

districts.

Bough studied educational Opportunities in Indiana

before and after school district reorganization. The fol-

lowing seven Conclusions were reached:

1.

2.

School district reorganization resulted in
schools that were equal to or superior to the
original schools in all respects.

Reorganization provided the greatest gains in
education by means of a broader scope of class
and extraclass Offerings.

1Maine School District Commission, op. cit., p. 7.

46

3. It (reorganization) resulted in an improved
administrative structure.

4. It resulted in more qualified instructional
staffs with more time to improve the quality
of classroom instruction.

5. It resulted in an increase in number and
quality of Special services provided for
students.

6. It provided for increased efforts to provide
for individual differences Of students and
maximum development Of each student.

7. Students in schools with limited class and
extra-class Offerings take advantage Of in-
creased educational ppportunities Offered in
reorganized schools.

First studied the consolidation of three school
districts in Michigan. Before consolidation Elkton and
Pigeon both were operating high schools accredited by
The North Central Association and the University of Michi-
gan. Bay Port had its own small high school too. Across
the rest of the area elementary youngsters converged upon
the twenty-one one or two-room schools. At that time, of
the sixty-three country schools Operating in Huron County,
twenty-two had no hand-washing facilities and three were

completely without their own water supply. Fifty-six had

privies instead of indoor toilets, and fifty-one were

_

1Max Bough, "Educational Opportunities in the
Secondary Schools of Vigo County, Indiana, Before and
After School District Reorganization," Teachers Collogg
Journal, 35 (November, 1963), pp. 51—52.

 

47

constructed Of combustible materials and lacked modern
fire features. After ten years of study and direction,
the voters passed the consolidation issue by a small mar-
gin. The merger was said tO combine a solid tax base,
an enlarged high school enrollment, and a school-minded
adult populace interested in better education within the
reach of available finances.1

Schultz discovered there may be no inherent value
in either bigness or smallness, the larger the school
district, at least up to 1,200 and probably up to 2,000
or more pUpils, the better the school opportunities and
the greater the economy of operation. In his study Of
reorganized school districts in Iowa, the author found
that the indoor gymnasium, well-equipped auditoriums,
ample restroom facilities, and sufficient storage space
were among the rewards of reorganization and consolidation.
Well-stocked libraries with plenty of light and space
became a reality, but the outstanding feature was that
the attractive, more useable surroundings made it easier
for teachers to give their best to the students and for

students to give their best to their studies.2

1Joan M. First, "The Elkton-Pigeon-Bay Port Story,"
Michigan Education Journal, 38 (September, 1960), pp. 7-10.

2John G. Schultz, "Fewer, Bigger, Better," National
Education Association Journal, 48 (November, 1959),pp. 10-13.

 

48

The purpose of Kent's study was to determine the

extent and adequacy Of selected educational characteris-

tics in nine reorganized high schools in Indiana which

has completed reorganization by August, 1953. The fol-

lowing conclusions were drawn from the study:

1.

In all areas under consideration, the nine re-
organized high schools were superior tO the
twenty-three original high schools.

The greatest gains associated with consolida-
tion occurred in providing more adequate
physical facilities.

The instructional staffs of the nine reorga-
nized high schools were not superior in train-
ing and experience, but they were working

under conditions more favorable to satisfactory
achievement.

Based upon the ratings of the Evaluative Cri-
teria in the areas of program Ofistudies,
activity program, and school plant, the nine
reorganized high schools appeared to be average
or abpve in providing educational Opportuni-
ties.

 

A Michigan State University Bulletin suggested

that reorganization should Obtain the following attributes:

1.
2.

Broader base for local control.
Good staff easier to Obtain in larger districts.
Specialized educational programs broadened.
Varied curricula Obtained.

Increased efficiency.

1Walter Knight Kent, "Educational Opportunities in
Nine Indiana Reorganized High Schools," (unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Indiana University, 1957).

49

6. Improved facilities.

7. Enriched experiences.1

One of the most comprehensive research studies of
the effects of school district reorganization was conducted
,by Kreitlow in Wisconsin. Kreitlow began a study in 1949
with the objective of determining what actually happened
after reorganization took place. He took children who in
1949 were in the first grade of five newly reorganized
school districts and in five matched control communities,
and determined the effects of reorganization in terms of
educational opportunities, achievement, cost, and social
impact when these children were in the first, sixth,
ninth, and twelfth grades. His examination of the schools
and the children in 1960, when they were in the twelfth
grade, revealed the following facts: (a) greater educa-
tional opportunities were found in the reorganized schools
than in the non-reorganized schools, (b) the students in
the reorganized schools showed greater achievement than
students in the control schools, (c) the cost in the re-
organized schools was found to be twelve dollars per

student higher than in the control schools, and (d) the

 

1College of Education, Michigan State University,
9p. cit., pp. 5-8.

50

impact Of reorganization on the community was found to
be negligible.1

Buck listed at least three questions that should
be answered concerning any reorganization proposal:

1. When youth are lifted out of the primary
contacts of home and neighborhood, what,
if any, are the effects on discipline and
delinquency?

2. Is the leadership base among youth actually
broadened (as claimed) by the reorganization,
or does the highly competitive situation
actually squeeze out many capable youth?

3. Since the school is often the center of the
secular life of the community, a strong force
which draws parents into relations with each
other, to what extent does reorganization al-
ter the patterns of adult association?2

The Iowa Department of Public Instruction studied
the effects of school district reorganization in that
state between 1955 and 1962. The report concluded that
reorganization improved the efficiency of Iowa Schools by
making it possible to use administrators, supervisors,

and consultants more prudently and effectively.3 There

L

1Burton W. Kreitlow, School District Reor aniza-
tion, Documentary, Par IV on i6 mm sound film, Ma iSOn:
University Of Wisconsin, Department Of Education, 1961,
30 min.

 

2Buck, op. cit., pp. 26-27.

 

3Iowa Department of Public Instruction, Future
Goals for Public Schools in Iowa, (November, 19535, p. 4.

51

was also an increase in the efficient use of teachers.
During the same time period the quality Of instruction
improved. Annual test data among Iowa high school stu-
dents remained relatively stable for a number of years,
with no appreciable change having occurred between 1948
and 1955. Beginning in 1956, however, average test per-
formance rose consistently every year. When school dis-
tricts in Iowa were placed in enrollment categories, the
average cost per pupil declined as enrollment increased,
until the largest enrollment category was reached, where
a slight increase occurred.

Fitzwater reported the results of a study cover-
ing 552 districts in eight states. He reported that the
new teaching staffs had higher levels Of college prepara-
tion than those employed in the old districts before re-
organization. He also found staffs were improved by
adding nurses, psychologists, guidance counselors, physi-
cians, speech correctionists and dental hygienists. He
described marked improvements in music, art, and vocational
education programs.1

Hamilton and Rowe studied the academic achievement

of students in reorganized and non-reorganized districts

1Fitzwater, op. cit., p. 47.

 

52

and found the preponderance of evidence indicated that
greater academic achievement is likely to take place in
larger schools. They learned that larger facilities
often mean greater possibilities for specialization in
remedial work, foreign languages, vocal and instrumental
music, industrial arts, citizenship, health education,
and other areas. Services in such specialized areas
were found to be characteristic Of larger school districts
and are regarded by many educators as being of vital im-
portance in producing well-rounded children and in
equalizing educational Opportunities.1

The Research Department of the Illinois Education
Association Obtained and analyzed data from 118 districts
which recently were organized as one unit from kindergar-
ten through the twelfth grade. An analysis Of the remain-
der of the total of 244 districts reorganized under the
community unit law was also made when information was
available from state records. Selected teachers and county
superintendents who were associated with the reorganized
districts were also questioned. The findings revealed

that improvements in the educational program had been

 

1Deforest Hamilton and Roberta N. Lowe, "Academic
Achievement of Students in Reorganized and Non-Reorganized
Districts," Phi Delta Kappan, 43: (June, 1962), pp. 401-
404.

 

53

made but that a number of reorganized districts were
inadequate.1

Another major study investigated the achievements
of reorganized schools in Missouri.2 This study followed
the general plan of comparing, first the educational ser-
vices before and after reorganization and, second, certain
administrative aspects of reorganized and non-reorganized
schools. The latter comparisons were made by means of
a check list developed from information which was gathered
at the time of the first comparisons.

A study of the progress in school district reor-
ganization was made by the Nebraska State Committee on

School District Reorganization.3

The investigation was
limited principally to two counties in south-central
Nebraska, but it dealt with various phases of reorgani-
zation. Its findings, in general, parallel those reported

for the studies of Illinois and Missouri.

 

1Illinois Education Association, Research Depart-
ment, Community Unit Schools (Springfield, Illinois: The
Association, 1952), p.i4.

2Harold E. Green, "A Comparison of School Dis-
tricts in Missouri Before and After Reorganization" (un-

pgblished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri,
53).

 

3State Committee for the Reorganization Of School

Districts, (Nebraska School District Mergers, Lincoln,
Nebraska: The Committee, 1954), p. 7.

54

The three studies found, in summary, that assessed
valuation of school districts was increased greatly as a
result of reorganization. Tax levies tended to remain
constant in Illinois and Missouri but were reduced in
Nebraska. The cost of instruction rose in Illinois and
Missouri. Transportation costs were found to be affected
most in Illinois, particularly by sparsity of population,
salaries of bus drivers, and a limitation of transporta-
tion to home-school trips. The studies found that re-
organized schools were offering additional and expanded

educational services.

Adequacyas a Goal of Reorganization

 

A number of writers have discussed the relation-
ship between school district reorganization and improve-
ment of school districts. Although the purpose of this
study is not to determine criteria for adequacy of
schools, those studies concerned with the expressed ad-
vantages Of reorganization cannot be omitted from any
reorganization study.

In 1963 Packard discussed the advantages and
limitations of large and small school districts and Of-
fered as an Optimum size district one within the range

Of 4,000 and 25,000 pupils enrolled in kindergarten

55

through the twelfth grade. The greatest disadvantage
of small schools appeared to be inadequate administra-
tion and lack Of control by the board. On the other
hand, the lack of communication seemed to be the great-
est problem of large schools.1

The following statement concerning adequacy in-
troduces the 1965 Georgia Survey Report:

All public school reorganization is related
to a common goal, but a distinction must be made
between three major concerns: (1) program Oppor-
tunities, which are conducted in (2) local school
centers, which in turn are established by (3)
school systems. Put another way, adequate systems
mustibe created before adequate school centers can
be established; and adequate local schools must be
maintained if adequate opportunities are to be pro-
vided. The minimum opportunities to be equalized
throughout the state of Georgia have been recom-
mended by the Committee On Standards. To provide
these opportunities the present study proposed
criteria of adequacy in organization.

 

 

 

 

Reeves and Dawson suggested it was necessary to
have administrative units with at least 1,200 pupils.
It was also found that gains in efficiency and economy
could be expected as the size of the administrative unit

increased up to approximately 10,000 pupils.3 No one

-L

1John C. Packard, "Local School District Size vs
Local Control," The American School Board Journal, 146
(February, 1963), pp. 9-10.

 

2Division of Surveys and Field Services, George
Peabody College for Teachers, Organization Of School
Districts in Georgia, Nashville, 1965, p. 1.

 

3Dawson and Reeves, Op. cit., p. 131.

 

56

type of school district was proved to be superior to all
others, but the conclusion was reached that immediate
reorganization of school districts throughout the United
. States was needed to improve educational programs.

The A.A.S.A. Committee corroborated Dawson and
Reeves as they explained that outmoded, inefficient weak
school districts must be eliminated and the efforts of
people who desire good schools should not be thwarted.
The suggested method for doing this was reorganization
of school districts.

The National Commission Of School District Re-
organization issued the following recommendations as far
back as 1948:

1. At least 175 pupils ought to be enrolled in
the kindergarten and grades one through six
with seven teachers. A better program could
be maintained with an enrollment of 300 pupils
and twelve teachers.

2. At least 300 pupils,with seventy-five in each
age group, ought to be enrolled in high school
with twelve full-time teachers.

The U. S. Department of the Interior declared the

states had the responsibility to establish plans and pro-
cedures for organizing the schools and the local school

Systems so as to make possible, as nearly as practicable,

the attainment Of these minimum standards for all children

11bid., p. 79.

57

entitled to the privileges of public school. The A.A.S.A.
Committee on School District Organization expressed in
their report that school district organization was es-
tablished and has been maintained in every state for the
fundamental purpose of dealing wisely and well with these
and other administrative problems so that educational
programs for children and youth can go forward undisturbed
and uninterrupted.
Chisholm listed the following Objectives that
are sought through reorganization Of school districts:
1. To strengthen and preserve local control over
education by developing throughout the state
school districts that will be effective under

existing conditions.

2. To make possible an efficient expenditure of
the taxpayers' money.

3. To provide better educational Opportunities
for thousands Of children.

4. To help enrich community life.1

A number of studies have been conducted in rela-
tion to size Of schools and adequacy of program. Wright
studied and summarized eighteen of those conducted between

1956 and 1963.2

_‘

According to the studies considering

1Chisholm, Op. cit., p. VI.

 

2Grace S. Wright, Enrollment Size and Educational
Effectiveness Of the Hi h School, U. S. Department of
Health, EdUcation and elfare, Office Of Education, (Wash-
1ngton, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1964), pp. 1-3.

 

58

curriculum offerings, variety is increased with increase
in enrollment size, up to a point, 2,000 or less. Also
favoring the large high school was the factor of staff
qualifications. A study of teacher qualifications as the
sole variable reported that qualifications in general in-
creased with size of enrollment; schools enrolling fewer
than 400 pupils did not generally attract the best quali-
fied teachers. Some evidence existed that achievement of
pupils in or from very small schools was not equal to
that Of students from large schools as measured by stan-
dardized achievement tests, college grades, or degrees
earned. In the area Of extracurricular activities, fairly
general agreement was found among the studies that smaller
schools experience greater pupil participation. The find-
ings of the eighteen studies showed that the Optimum size
Of a high school for all-around educational effectiveness
appeared to be something less than 2,000.1
Various state study groups have proposed reorgani-
zation of school districts as a means of attaining certain
desired standards of adequacy. The Connecticut Study Com-

mittee suggested advantages of reorganization:

¥

2Ibid.

59

Advantageous deployment of personnel.

Better preparation of all students for the
decisions and responsibilities of citizen-
ship in an increasingly complex world and
to prepare the most able students for college.

Provision of enough testing, guidance and
evaluation services.

Sufficient instruction for the mentally, the
physically, the socially, and the emotionally
handicapped, the special instruction without
which they cannot hope to gain full human
stature.

Provision Of financial advantages for teachers'
salaries, capital investment, materials,
transportation, and specialized services.1

The Illinois Committee listed certain general ad-

vantages Of school district reorganization:

1.
2.

Improved financing and purchasing.

Improved organization within the district.
Improved administration.

Improved curriculum.

Improved supervision and instruction.

Improved special services for school children.

Improved phgsical plants and instructional
facilities.

1Connecticut State Department of Education, Bureau
of Research, Statistics and Finance, Regional School Dis-

ggicts in Connecticut, 1962, pp. 1-2.

 

2Illinois Superintendent of Public Instruction,
Qpportunities and Benefits Of the Community Unit School Dis-
:zict in Illinois, Springfield, May, 1963, pp. 6-13.

60

The California Committee on School District Re-
organization recognized the following factors in deter-
mining a satisfactory school district:

1. Complementary sociO-economic make-up includ-
ing community of interest;

2. Financial ability Of an area, together with
state funds, to provide education at a rea-
sonable cost per student.

3. Equalization of the tax burden for support
Of schools; and

4. Adequate present and potential size of the
pupil population to be served.

The Minnesota Committee listed some advantages
that could be gained by the reorganization Of Minnesota
school districts.

1. More equal educational opportunity for all
Minnesota youth

2. Better Opportunities for a high school
education

3. More equitable distribution of school costs
4. More diversified education.
5. Improved library, health and other facilities

6. More efficient administration and supervision

1California Commission on School District Organiza-
tion, Problems of School District Or anization in Califor-
nia, Gaiifornia State Department ofiE ucation, 1962, p. 9.

 

61

7. Better trained teachers

8. Greater permanency in larger units

9. Opportunities for vocational education1

McHenry who studied Utah schools and Williams
who studied Oregon schools agreed on the goals of re-
organization.2 They described reorganization as leading
to efficiency and economy in educational programs and
services which would, at the same time, be compatible
with the needs and demands of modern technological society.

The Superintendent of Public Instruction in the
state of Washington stated that school district reorgani-
zation in his state was encouraged in order to give the
patrons of school districts a greater voice in the manage-
ment of their schools, and to improve the educational
program and its related services for the children of
these districts.:5

The California State Board Of Education spoke of
school district reorganization as leading to improved

schools:

 

1State of Minnesota, Department Of Education,
Rural Division; Equality of Educational Opportunity,
1960, p. 3.

2Verne A. McHenry, "School District Reorganiza-

tion in Utah," (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Uni-
versity Of Nebraska, 1965)

3Williams, loc. cit.

 

62

It shall be the policy of the state board
of education to encourage and give primary con-
sideration to the formation of adequate unified
school districts inasmuch as the adequate uni-
fied school district provides the greatest Op-
portunity for continuous improvement of the
educational program and for effective and effi-
cient use of school funds.

In 1942 the Michigan Public Education Study
Commission was appointed by Governor Murray D. Van Wagoner
to make an exhaustive study of the educational inequali-
ties of Michigan Public Education. One of the commission's
major recommendations was that the state should encourage
improved education through reorganization and that there
should be a gradual reduction of the 6,239 school dis-
tricts to 253 reasonably self-sufficient community school
districts which would represent the combined social, econo-
mic, and educational interests of both rural and urban
groups.

One of the most extensive studies of school dis-
trict reorganization was conducted by Roland Strolle in
Michigan in 1955. He too recommended reorganization of
school districts as a means of making them adequate. He
used the following criteria for adequacy:

1. An adequate school district should provide an

educational program at least through grade
twelve.

. 1California Commission on School District Organiza-
tion, op. cit., p. 2.

 

63

2. An adequate school district should have at
least 900 enrolled in grades kindergarten
through twelve.

3. An adequate school district should have a
minimum of $6,000,000 state equalized valua-
tion or a per pupil valuation of $7,000.

4. An adequate school district maintaining all

twelve grades should possess the quality Of
social cohesiveness.

SUMMARY

Five general areas were covered in this review
of the literature pertaining to school district reorgani-
zation; trends in schoOl district reorganization, causes
of reorganization, hindrances to reorganization, results
of reorganization, and adequacy of school districts as a
goal of reorganization.

The general trend described in the literature is
that school districts throughout the nation increased as
new districts were created until the early 1900's at
which time the trend toward fewer districts with more
pupils began. As a result Of increasing population and
demand for more education the pace of reorganization
gained momentum after World War II, is continuing now,
and is expected to reduce the number Of school districts

even further.

1Strolle, loc. cit.

 

64

Causes of school district reorganization are
growth Of population, demand for extended educational
services, improved transportation programs, and desire
for better facilities. Financial considerations are
also significant.

Hindrances to school district reorganization
are described as fear of increased taxes, America's long
established tradition of local control, lack of communi-
cation, lack of uniform goals, misunderstanding of what
reorganization is, and lack of leadership.

Numerous studies of the results of reorganization
have shown that it has typically led to improved educa-
tional programs, better financial support, a wider scope
of subject Offerings, equalized educational opportunities,
improved training of staffs, and improved administrative
conditions. However, some writers indicated that the
positive aspects of reorganization were frequently exag-
gerated, and that school district reorganization should
not be considered a panacea for educational problems.

Several writers have established criteria for
adequate school districts to be obtained through reorgani-
zation. Many of them referred to enrollment size as the
major element to consider. There was not, however, con-

sensus as to what constituted a maximum or minimum size

65

for administrative units. Although there is not general
agreement concerning the criteria Of an adequate school
district, the desire to obtain adequate school districts
has been the primary factor stimulating reorganization in

most areas .

CHAPTER III

AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION
BY STATES

Public education being a state rather than a local
function, school district reorganization is a state re-

1 In the state, legislators have complete

sponsibility.
power except for whatever constitutional restrictions
have been placed on them. Redistricting laws vary greatly
both in approach and in effectiveness in bringing about
better districts. Some states have enacted laws which
directly reorganize all the districts within the state
or all those below a specified size. Other states have
several redistricting laws, in some cases none of them
effective. A few states have completely reorganized,
or very largely so, by means of a single statute.

Almost every state has some type of school dis-
trict reorganization legislation. Several states have

passed such legislation within recent years. Others

passed effective permissive legislation long ago and

1Fitzwater, op. cit., p. 3.

66

67

have continuously been improving their school districts
through reorganization. A few states have so effectively
reorganized their school districts that they have no need
for further reorganization legislation. Since 1948 the
average annual decrease in the number of school districts
in the United States has exceeded 3,000. The sharp re-
duction in the number of districts undoubtedly results
from the fact that several states have enacted legisla-
tion to compel reorganization.

A number Of states solved their school district
reorganization problems by adopting the county unit of ad-
ministration through mandatory legislation.

A clarification concerning references to satis-
factory reorganized school districts must be made. School
districts may be organized into administrative units that
appear to be of sufficient size and financial ability to
offer good educational programs. However, this does not
guarantee satisfactory organization of school attendance
centers within the individual school districts. Small
inadequate school buildings, or even one-room school
houses, may still exist within what appears to be a well-
organized school district. Therefore, statements in this

study regarding satisfactorily organized school districts

68

merely refer to school districts that are Of sufficient
size to offer adequate K-12 educational programs.

Many people believe that efforts toward school
district reorganization will continue unabated and that
within the foreseeable future no more than 5,000 school
districts will be operating.1

A brief description of school district reorgani-
zation in other states is presented in the following
pages. This information was Obtained from an analysis
of data received from the departments of education of
the states studied. States are categorized as having
made notable or limited progress according to the per-
cent Of decrease in the number of school districts within

recent years.

States That Have Made Notable Reorganization
Progrogg

 

Arkansas

 

The state Of Arkansas had a statewide reorganiza-
tion program approved in 1948, which reduced the number
of school districts from 1,901 to 424. Since that time
there have been few consolidations, and at the present

time the state has 401 school districts.

 

1American Association of School Administrators,
School District Organization, op. cit., p. 4.

 

69

There is a proposal which will appear on the
ballot in November, 1966, and if it is favorably approved
by the voters, it will eliminate 137 school districts
that now have less than 400 children enumerated. The
legislation will cause all districts with less than 400
pupils to be dissolved and will prohibit thereafter the

formation of any school district with less than 400 pupils.

California

 

In 1945, legislation was enacted establishing a
school district reorganization program which, for the
first time, provided a practical way of forming unified
districts throughout the state. The State Commission of
School Districts created by the 1945 legislature suc-
ceeded, through its regional commissions and local com-
mittees, in having studies made Of most areas Of the
state, resulting in widespread increase in understanding
of the need for and benefits Of reorganization. In 1949
the State Commissionfs term ended, and its functions were
assigned to the State Board of Education.

The State Board discharged its responsibility to
review and act upon the merits of each proposal submitted
in an attempt to use its authority to effect district

organization that would provide for maximum recognition

70

of the principle of equal educational opportunity for
children.

The county committees had the responsibility under
law to formulate plans and recommendations for the organi-
zation of school districts. County committees in formu-
lating plans and recommendations had to consider the
following: (a) Community Identity, (b) Size, (d) Fi-
nancial Ability, (d) Division of Existing Elementary,
High School, or Unified Districts, (e) Boundaries of Pro-
posed Districts. Each plan had to be approved by the
State Board.1

Since 1945 the number of districts in the state
has been reduced by well over a fifth. Progress has also
been made in eliminating overlapping elementary and high
school districts, with the result that the number of
unified districts has been almost doubled.

During the legislative session of 1965 many at-
tempts were made to weaken the 1964 statutes but in
every case they were defeated and the strong 1964 act
was not changed. One bill, a financial measure, was
introduced to provide an additional fifteen dollars to
the financial program Of unified districts and thus en—

courage districts, but this provision was not approved.

 

1Bulletin Of the California State Department of
Education, School District Organization by County Committees

 

(Sacramento, California, State Department of Education,
March 1962), p. 4.

71

Colorado

 

The number of school districts in Colorado was
reduced from 205 to 184 during 1965. This was accom-
plished in part by an act which was passed in the General
Assembly's 1964 Session which provided in effect that
county high school districts and their component elemen-
tary districts should cease to exist on February 1, 1965,
and that, if the combined enrollments of such districts
were less than 1,500, their areas were to be annexed to
the adjacent district or districts containing enrollments
of more than 1,500, all in accordance with a plan Of
annexation prepared by the County School Planning Committee.

The Department of Education of the State Of
Colorado is pleased With the fact that the voluntary
program of school district reorganization initiated by
the Colorado General Assembly and utilized by the citi-
zens has virtually revolutionized the educational climate
of the state to the point where old the "common school" dis-
trict with its pattern Of elementary education has been
virtually replaced by school districts offering twelve

grades of education as a minimum.

72

Number of Colorado School Districts:

1925 - - - 2,003 1959 - - - 792
1930 - - - 2,041 1960 - - - 478
1935 - - - 2,105 1961 - - - 382
1940 - - - 2,037 1962 - - - 316
1945 - - - 1,884 1963 - - - 263
1950 - - - 1,648 1964 - - - 222
1955 - - - 1,017 1965 - - - 205
1957 - - - 929 1966 - - - 184 1
Connecticut

 

The state of Connecticut has 169 towns operating
179 school districts. The towns vary in school member-
ship from fewer than 100 resident pupils to about 25,000
pupils. Connecticut pioneered in the movement for the
enlargement of secondary school districts after it
thoroughly investigated this subject in the early 1930's.
Subsequently, eleven regional high school districts now
serve twenty-nine towns. The Connecticut statutes permit
the formation, by proper procedures, of completely region-

alized school districts. The Department Of Education and

 

1Colorado Department of Education, School District
Organization, (Denver, Colorado Department Of Education,
January, 1966), p. 1.

 

73

State Board of Education encourage continued regionaliza-

tion of school districts.

Idaho

 

As Of July 22, 1966, Idaho had 106 high school
Operating districts and eleven elementary districts.

Idaho's school district reorganization program
was initiated in 1947. In its early stages the program
progressed so rapidly that by 1949 over eighty percent
of the area of the state was in reorganized districts.
Since 1949 progress has continued at a steady, though
less spectacular pace.

By July 1954, the state had a total of 190 dis-
tricts as compared with approximately 1,100 in 1947.
Only eighty-three districts had not been reorganized,
and eighteen of these did not operate schools. Ninety-
six percent of the public school enrollment was in re-

organized districts.

Indiana

In 1959 Indiana passed a school reorganization
law which set up legal machinery to enable citizens in
each of the counties to study their own school organiza-
tion needs and to instigate changes if they believed im-

provement was needed. Studies Of school corporations

74

were required by law and had to be made. The law did
not require any changes if a majority of the local citi-
zens did not want them. The law set up county committees,
and recommended minimum standards for school districts.
A few amendments have been made to the 1959 law but
they are not significant.
When the reorganization law was passed in 1959
the aim was to reduce Indiana's 1,000 school districts
to 200-250. As of July 28, 1966 Indiana had a total of

406 school districts.

Iowa

 

In conformity to the county administration law,
the county board of education in each county in Iowa
initiated detailed studies and surveys of the school
districts within the counties for the purpose of promot-
ing reorganization of districts by union, merger, re-
organization or centralization which would effect more
economical Operation and the attainment of higher
standards of education in the schools.

It was declared to be the policy of the state
to have all the area of the state in a district main-
taining twelve grades by July 1, 1962. Prior to July 1,
1962 no district could be reorganized without approval

of the voters. After July 1, 1962 the county board

75

could attach any district that was not in a district
maintaining twelve grades to such a district.

Iowa's plan called for the complete elimination
of rural elementary districts and for a reduction in
the total number Of school districts to 300-350 by 1965.
As of the Fall of 1965, Iowa had reduced the number Of
its school districts to 984.

Iowa is one of four states presently engaged in
a cooperative project to analyze the organization, func-
tions, and services of school districts in the Great
Plains area. The cooperating states are Nebraska, South
Dakota, Missouri, and Iowa. The two-year study is being
conducted under a $355,000 Title V grant from the United

States Office of Education.

Kansas

Reorganization is referred to as unification in
the state Of Kansas. In September, 1963 when the unifi-
cation process began in Kansas there were 1,848 school
districts in the state with 510 districts Operating high
schools. Eighty-eight of these 510 high schools, prior
to unification, had an enrollment of less than 300

students.

76

As of May 1, 1966, every county in the state was
at least partially unified, and eighty-six counties were
completely unified. Atthe present time there are 306
unified districts and forty-two non-unified districts in
the state. Twenty-three of the forty-two non-unified
districts are common school districts operating grades
one through eight; seven are common school districts
Operating grades one through twelve; ten are rural high
school districts; and two are second class districts.

Enrollment figures for unified districts and
for districts that are to become unified for all purposes
are as follows: of the 306 unified districts, eight dis-
tricts will have an enrollment in grades one through
twelve of fewer than 151 students; fifty-four will have
an approximate enrollment Of fewer than 401 students but
more than 151 in grades one through twelve; the estimated
enrollment in 132 more unified districts will fall between
401 and 800 students in grades one through twelve; fifty-
eight more districts will have enrollments from 801 to
1,500 students; and fifty-four unified districts will

have enrollments in excess of 1,500 students.1

 

1State of Kansas Department of Public Instruction,
Unification Progress Report as of May 1, 1966, (Topeka,
Kansas: Department of Pubiicinstruction, 1966), p. 3.

77

In 1957, Maine had ninety-two high schools with
less than one-hundred pupils. The legislature realized
reorganization of school districts was needed. Communi-
ties were urged to band together in school districts to
achieve a more judicious use Of state and local tax
moneys. Incentives offered at the state level were higher
Operational subsidies and school construction aid. Dis-
trict reorganization was effective in the reduction of
the number Of small high schools; of the ninety-two schools
with fewer than 100 pupils Operating in 1957, only forty-
seven schools of this size were in existence in 1963. In
August of 1966, Maine had a total of 265 school admini-

strative units; fifty-eight districts, 207 towns.

Minnesota

 

Minnesota's school district reorganization laws
were voluntary on the part of the individual school dis-
tricts until 1963. With 7,600 school districts in 1947,
Minnesota made a gradual reduction year by year until
only 2,002 districts existed as of July 1, 1964. Of
this number, 450 maintained both elementary and secondary
schools, approximately 500 were non-Operating districts,

and approximately 1,000 were maintaining elementary schools

78

only, most of which were one-teacher schools. The legis-
lature of 1963 passed a law abolishing the non-Operating
districts as of July 1, 1965. This law was the first

1 As

with any element Of compulsion connected with it.
a consequence of the 1963 law, some 300 closed districts
took action prior to July 1, 1965 to join other districts,
and another 300 were attached after July 1, 1965 in ac-
cordance with the mandatory provisions of the law. The
1966 report shows a further reduction of about fifty
school districts, so the total number as Of July 15, 1966

was 1,424.

Missouri

 

Missouri's legislature recently passed legisla-
tion which provides for the merging Of two or more common
school districts which together have an area of fifty
square miles or have an enumeration of at least two hun-
dred children of school age.

To initiate a proposed merging Of districts a
petition is required, signed by at least twenty-five Of

the voters of the district or districts concerned. On

 

1State of Minnesota Department Of Education,
Risingducational Requirements Call for District Re-
organization,(St. Paul, Minnesota; Department of Educa-
tion, OctOber, 1965), p. 11.

 

79

receipt of the petition the county superintendent deter-
mines the boundary lines of the new district to form, in
his judgment, the best possible district. A majority af-
firmative vote of the total votes cast is required for
adoption.

Also, the county board Of education is authorized
“by law to currently study the needs for prOposing more
adequate and satisfactory school districts and from time
to time submit specific plans for reorganization of school

districts of the county.

Nebraska

 

When the Nebraska legislature passed the School Dis-
trict Reorganization Act in 1949, Nebraska had 6,734 school
districts. This number was reduced each year so that from
that time to 1962, 3,657 school districts were dissolved. This
represents a reduction of fifty-four percent of the number of
districts which Nebraska had in 1949. At that time Nebraska
still had 3,077 districts, which was more than the combined
total Of Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho,
Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico.1

However, by October 1, 1965 the number of school districts

has been further reduced to 2,527.

 

1Governor's 1963-64 Conference on Education,
(Lincoln, Nebraska, Department of Education, 1964),
pp. 1-24.

80

Further legislation has been passed in Nebraska
to encourage the continuation of district reorganization.
Under the provisions of a bill passed by the 1965 legis-
lature, a majority of the legal voters of any Class I or
II school districts may dissolve the district and attach
the territory to one or more existing Class II, III, IV,

or V school districts.

New Hampshire

 

New Hampshire citizens have authorized more reor-
ganization of their school districts in the past two
years than in any period since the Town School Act was
passed in 1885. That act reduced the number Of school
districts in the state from more than 2,200 to less than
250.

The number of administrative districts has been
further reduced to about 200 in the past two years, and
more reductions are being contemplated by local planning
boards.

The trend to enlarge districts in size, but re-
duce them in number, has gained strength from two major
happenings on the educational scene in New Hampshire.'
The first is the recommendation of the 1962 Interim Com-
mission Study on Education to reduce the number Of dis-

tricts and school supervisory unions. The second was

81

the legislative enactment of revisions of cooperative
school laws, giving a clear pattern for reorganization

studies and authorizing more state financial aid.

New Mexico

 

The state of New Mexico recently passed legis-
lation for school district reorganization that is much
like that of Michigan's current legislation. The New
mexico plan provides for reorganization Of county school
districts by combining them with adjacent municipal dis-
tricts or creating independent districts and authorizing
the state board to certify rural school districts as in-
dependent school districts. I

Under the legislation each county board of educa-
tion was required to prepare a plan for its administra-
tive reorganization to combine it with an existing
adjacent municipal or independent administrative unit or
units, or to create new independent administrative units
composed of all or some Of the existing rural school
districts under its jurisdiction. If a plan is not sub-
mitted or not accepted by the State Board, the State
Board of Education shall effect the administrative reor-
ganization of the county school system.

As of July 15, 1966, there were ninety school

districts in New Mexico.

82

New York

 

New York passed a new reorganization law in 1965
which returned incentive aid as an impetus for school or-
ganization. It established a procedure for granting
state aid for school building purposes to school districts
scheduled for reorganization and granting additional state
aid to certain school districts after reorganization. The

state had 991 school districts as of March 1, 1966.

North Dakota

 

There were 2,275 school districts in North Dakota
in 1947 when the school district reorganization law became
effective. By July, 1964, there were about 650 school
districts in the state. Many of the original districts
ceased to exist as a result of individual schOOl district
petitioning for annexation to an adjoining school dis-
trict. During the years 1962-1964 a number of districts
were dissolved under the provisions of the law which pro-
vides that any district not Operating a school for two
consecutive years must be dissolved by attachment to an
adjacent school district or districts. This section
providing for the "automatic" dissolution of school dis-
tricts that operated no schools for a two-year period was
amended by the 1965 legislature requiring that the State

Board Of Public School Education, which is also the board

83

for reorganization, approve such automatic reorganizations.

As Of July 15, 1966, North Dakota had 600 school districts.

Oklahoma

 

The annexation law which changed the Oklahoma
school district pattern to an extent greater than had any
previous legislation was the "mandatory” annexation law
passed in 1947. It required that all districts having
an average daily attendance for the preceding year of
less than thirteen pupils should be annexed by the State
Board of Education to the district or districts maintain-
ing high school in whose transportation area it was
situated. Also, that all districts failing to maintain
school during the next preceding year should be similarly
annexed. This law had a revolutionary effect on the
school district system in Oklahoma. Hundreds of non-high
school districts whose attendance had reached thirteen
or fewer were annexed to districts maintaining high
school. Many other annexations occurred by elections
held where citizens realized that their districts soon
would be abolished in the same manner. The local advan-
tage Of the election was to give the peOple of the dis-
trict a choice in selecting the district maintaining

high school to which they were to be annexed.1 Since

 

1Kerr, loc. cit.

 

84

1947, when this law became effective, 3,290 school dis-
tricts have been annexed or consolidated by mandatory
action of the state board Of education in compliance with
the law, or by voluntary vote of the people. As of

July 15, 1966, Oklahoma had 1,001 school districts.

Pennsylvania

 

The state of Pensylvania has had a great deal of
recent legislation passed which pertains to school dis-
trict reorganization. An act was recently passed to
permit the creation of independent school districts for
reorganization purposes only. These independent dis-
tricts are non-operative. The purpose of this act is to
permit the placement of certain out-of-the-way areas
into school districts which are more accessible because
of mountainous terrain. Another act recently passed
permits further voluntary reorganization of school dis—
tricts. Another act that recently took effect relates
to the election of county superintendents in Pennsylvania,
granting the school directors Of reorganized districts
voting privileges, entitling them to services of the
county Office and limiting the term Of office of the
county superintendent. This act is preparing the ground-
work for a reorganization of the intermediate units in

Pennsylvania.

85

Of the 466 proposed reorganized administrative
units in Pennsylvania, 413 were established as Of July 1,
1966. Due to pending appeals in the Commonwealth Court,
fifty-three proposed administrative units have not been
able to establish. Depending on the court's decision,
there could be an increase of as many as thirty-nine
additional districts before the mandated reorganization

is complete.

South Carolina

 

South Carolina went into a reorganization program
along with building funds to help implement the organiza-
tion in 1951. Since that time the state has cut down the
number of school districts from 1,300 to 108, which is
the number of districts in South Carolina at the present
time.

The South Carolina Act provides an illustration
of legislation which authorized a county agency and-state

agency to reorganize the school districts.

Tennessee

 

The Tennessee Legislature passed an act in 1963
which required that a planning commission be created in
all counties where separate school districts were main-

tained. The duty of the planning commission was to study

86

and consider the need for and problems in conjunction
with the consolidation of all public schools within the
county into a unified school system and to make and file
a written report with a proposed plan Of consolidation.
The plan had to be approved by the affected

governing body of any affected county or municipality

or the board Of education of an affected school district.
It then had to be approved by a majority of the voters.
Tennessee had 152 school districts in the 1964-65 school

year.

Washington

 

When Washington became a state in 1889 more than
1,000 school districts were already in existence. By
1900 the number of districts had increased to 2,022, and
by 1910 had reached a peak of 2,710 school districts.
Then, with the change from pioneer conditions, when it
was deemed necessary to have a public school within
walking distance of the children of every small community,
to more modern conditions of improved roads and trans-
portation facilities, the number of school districts
was reduced under acts of the legislature providing for
consolidation of school districts. As a result, the
number of school districts had decreased to 1,609 by

1939, and by 1945 to 723. The marked decrease in the

87

number of districts from 1939 to 1945 was effected under
the intensive school district reorganization program of
1941-45 initiated by the legislature.
As of September 30, 1965 there were 378 school
districts in the state of Washington classified as follows:
1. Elementary only, or non-high school district:

a. One-room districts: non-operating 13;

Operating, 22; total - - - - - - - - - 35
b. Graded school districts (two or more
teachers)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 92
Total 127
2. Unified school districts operating schools
from kindergarten through high school, and
in a limited number of cases advanced secon-
dary schools or community colleges - - - - -
Total 250
3. Union high school districts - - - - - - - — -
Total 1

Grand Total_‘;328_1
The trend in Washington contemplated and encouraged
by the school district organization statute is for non—
high school districts to unite with the high school dis-
tricts which serve them. The intent, according to the
State Board of Education, is not that the elementary school

in the non-high school district necessarily may be

 

1State Of Washington, Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Changes in School District Organization,
(Olympia, Washington, Department of Pubiic Instruction,
September, 1965), p. 14.

88

discontinued, but rather that (1) the patrons of these
districts may have a voice in the management of the high
schools which serve their children, and (2) that the edu-
cational program and its related services for the children
of these districts be improved.

The budget and appropriations act of 1965 con-
tained a proviso that stimulated more activity in school
district reorganization than for some time. This proviso
stipulated that an additional weighting factor for appor-
tionment purposes for the 1966-67 school year be allocated
to those non-high school districts which enroll fewer than
100 pupils and which are judged to be remote and necessary
by the state board of education.

Out of eighty-one districts with enrollments under
100 students, only fifteen have been categorized as remote
and necessary by the state board. As a result, even though
the other districts involved will not feel the effects Of
this legislation until the next school year, between fif-
teen and twenty of them voluntarily requested annexation
to unified districts during the six month period, January
to July. As of July 19, 1966 the total number of districts

was 363.

89

Wisconsin

 

The state of Wisconsin, since 1848, adopted a
series of laws affecting school district reorganization.
The most recent were the 1953 law which abolished non-
Operating school districts by ordering them to operate
a school or be consolidated with operating districts by
orders Of school district reorganization agencies; the
1959 law which made it mandatory that all of the area of
the state become a part of a school dstrict Operating a
high school by July 1, 1962 or be placed into such dis-
tricts after that date by county school committees with-
out recourse to local referendum; the 1961 law by which
school boards were authorized to reorganize school
districts to the extent that they might annex adjacent
territory to districts Operating high schools or to ad-
just school district boundary 1ines by mutual action.

In 1964, co-operative educational service agencies
were created to act as service units between the local
districts and the state superintendent's office. The
1965 legislature established two new school district
reorganization authorities, namely, the Agency School
Committee and the State Appeal Board.

As of July 1, 1966 Wisconsin had a total of 552

elementary and high school districts.

90

States That Have Had Limited
Reorganization Progress

 

 

Introduction

 

Several states have had no problem with school
district reorganization because the original organiza-
tion of their school districts provided satisfactory
administrative units for their educational programs or
because they were well organized at an early date due to
effective legislation. Others have problems with school
district reorganization but have been backward in im-

proving their situations.

Alaska

The state Of Alaska had seventeen school districts
in 1932 and has thirty at the present time. The number
of school districts has increased slowly with the growth
of pOpulation.

There are two school systems in the state of Alas-
ka--the state system and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
System. The state directly Operates schools through the
Department of Education. These are called state-Operated
schools. In addition, twenty-one city and one borough
Operate schools under general state laws. These are dis-
trict schools. A number Of independent school districts

were merged into various boroughs just prior to 1964.

91

An overall plan is now being followed which
provides for the gradual consolidation of school dis-
tricts and for the consolidation of state and Bureau
of Indian Affairs operated schools into a single state

school system.

Montana
The state of Montana Department of Education
indicates that the state has no school district reor-

ganization statutes.

Oregon

Minor legislation was passed in Oregon in 1965
concerning boundary changes and administrative school
districts. As Of July 1, 1966 Oregon had 390 school

districts.

Rhode Island

 

Very little legislation concerning school dis-
trict reorganization has occurred in Rhode Island. At
the present time there are forty school districts, in-

cluding three regional school districts, in Rhode Island.

South Dakota

 

South Dakota has only very limited legislation

for the reorganization of their school districts. Each

92

county board of education has authority to reorganize
the school districts within county boundaries whenever
any of the following is true:

1. Twenty percent of the electors of an exist-
ing school district present a petition to
the county board Of education requesting their
district be attached to another district, a
majority Of the voters of both districts ap-
prove the annexation.

2. A school district has taxable property assessed
at a lower valuation than one hundred thousand
dollars.

3. A school district has failed to elect a school
board member or members as provided by law.

4. Sixty percent of the votes cast in a special
election approve the dissolution of a school
district and its combination with another dis-
trict or districts.

5. A school district has failed to Operate a
school during the two preceding fiscal years.

As of July 1, 1966 South Dakota had a total Of

2,054 school districts, of which 225 were independent
school districts (K-12), and 1,829 were common school

districts(K-8).

93

2235.23
Most of the reorganization that has taken place
in Texas has been on a voluntary basis. The statutes
call only for methods by which common and independent
school districts may consolidate to form a new district.
Also, county school boards of trustees do have authority
to annex common school districts to independent school

districts under certain conditions.

Vermont

Vermont has had very limited legislation per-
taining to school district reorganization. However,
the 1965 legislature created a temporary advisory com-
mission tO study and recommend procedures for school
district reorganization. The act provides for the crea-
tion of a temporary advisory commission on reorganization
of school districts kindergarten through grade twelve.
The commission has responsibility to prepare guidelines
and a plan for each area of the state. The total number
of school districts in Vermont in the Fall of 1965 was

262.

Wyoming

Wyoming has two possible procedures for reorganiz-

ing school districts. One is through the district boundary

94

board and the other through the Reorganization Act of
1947. The district boundary board method is normally
not used unless there is considerable local pressure
for reorganization.

Wyoming is a state with a strong belief in local
autonomy of schools. There is absolutely no authority
vested in the state committee, none in the director.
Therefore, reorganization in Wyoming has proceeded at a
very slow pace. At the present time the state has one

hundred and sixty-four school districts.

County Units

 

Introduction

 

The county unit school district has a history
dating back to well before the beginning Of the twentieth
century. For the most part, it took hold in the South,
where the county has from the beginning of the nation
been a strong unit of local government. The development
of the county unit school district has been gradual in
most states that have it; and it has been perhaps a mat-
ter of necessity, since most of the states that adOpted
it could not afford the extravagance of the inefficient
common school district so highly prized by the people of.

the more affluent states.1

 

1American Association Of School Administrators,
School District Organization, Op. cit., p. 7.

 

 

95

The county unit school district has long been
advocated as the most effective unit of school admini-
stration by some of the recognized professional people
in school administration. Other professional experts
have condemned the county unit for neglecting the com-
munity aspects of school organization.1 Regardless of
their opinions, the Opponents Of county units have been
fighting a losing battle as the numbers Of school dis-
tricts organized as county units have continued to

increase.

Alabama

There has been no recent legislation nor activity
pertaining to school district reorganization in the state
Of Alabama. The school districts of Alabama were orga-
nized into county and city administrative units under
mandatory legislative procedures in 1903. As Of July 15,
1966 Alabama had a total of 118 school districts—ésixty-

seven county and fifty-one city school systems.

Florida
Prior to 1947, Florida had the "county unit"
system insofar as school board, financial administration,

and supervision of instruction were concerned. Each

 

1Ibid.

96

county still had, as late as 1946-47, a number of school
districts, which made a total of 650 for the state.
Through the years before 1947 the number of school dis-
tricts had been greatly reduced by local elections for
consolidations. In 1947, all districts within each of
sixty-seven counties were simply abolished and one dis-
trict established, co-extensive with the boundaries of

the county itself.

Georgia
Georgia's State Constitution of 1945 did away

with all school districts in the state, with the excep-
tion of independent city systems, and made the county

the unit of administration. There has been a continuous
trend in the state toward merging of the independent
systems with county school systems. Since the number

Of independent city systems is gradually being reduced,
the State Departmentof Education anticipates that within
the foreseeable future, the independent city systems will
cease to exist as separate units, with the possible ex-
ception of the city of Atlanta. As of July 14, 1966
there was a total Of 196 school districts in the state,
thirty-seven independent systems in operations, and one
hundred and fifty-nine county systems, each of which was

a school district. Each county, exclusive of any independent

97

school system, comprises one school district and is con-
trolled by the county board Of education. There were no
examples of mergers across county lines although the
constitution provided for such reorganization.
Recently, the state had a very comprehensive
study of school district reorganization conducted by
the Bureau Of Surveys and Field Studies, George Peabody
College for Teachers, which set up some principles for
use of the state board of education in dealing with
local school systems in the area of district organization.
At the present time, a constitutional amendment
is pending, to be voted on at the general election in
November, 1966, which will make it possible for any two
or more local school systems to merge into larger units
by local referendum when such mergers are desired. The
Department Of Education feels that if the amendment be-
comes a part of the constitution, it will serve as an
intermediate step between the present requirement that
such mergers must be through constitutional amendment

and the implementation of the Peabody Report.

Kentucky

 

Ten years ago Kentucky had 120 county units and
107 independent districts. There has been a gradual

trend in the state toward complete county units, which

98

has been going on for many years. As of July 15, 1966,

Kentucky had 200 school districts.

Louisiana

 

The organizational structure of Louisiana's pub-
lic school system, as provided in constitutional and
statutory provisions, requires that the parish (county)
school board serve as the administrative unit of the pub-
lic schools operated within the legally established
boundaries of the parish.1 The boundaries of the parish
of Orleans and city of New Orleans are coextensive. Other
exceptions to this provision are areas within three
parishes, which constitutional and legislative action
have designated and recognized as separate city school
systems. Accordingly, there are sixty-four parish and
three city school systems, or a total Of sixty-seven basic
school units at the local level of the state public school

organizational structure.

Mississippi

 

Mandatory legislation to reorganize school dis-

tricts was passed in Mississippi in 1953. The Mississippi

 

1State of Louisiana Department of Education, Fac-
tors in Schools' Holding Power, (Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
Department of Education, 1964, p. 5-6).

 

99

law gave authority to county boards Of education and
required them to reorganize the local districts in
each Of their respective counties in a manner that
would meet the approval of the State Educational Fi-
nance Commission by July, 1957. This requirement for
action was made effective by the provision making it
possible to deny state school funds to any county un-
til such time as the county board put into effect a
plan of school district reorganization that met the
approval of the State Finance Commission. As a result
of this legislation, the 1,417 local school districts
were reorganized into 151 districts by July, 1957.

At the present time Mississippi has the fOllow-

ing types Of school districts:

County Units - - - — - - - - - - - - 68
Consolidated Districts - - - - - - - 29
Municipal Separate Districts - - - - 52

Total 149

Nevada

Mandatory legislation approved by the state
legislature established the county unit in Nevada. In
1956 the Nevada Legislature abolished more than 180
then existing school districts and established seventeen

county school districts in their stead. The legislature,

100

at the same session in 1956, provided for the creation
of joint school districts; however, none of the districts
have seen fit to form joint school districts up to the

present time.

North Carolina

 

North Carolina was one of the earliest states to
reduce the number of school districts and consolidate its
schools. In 1839 the legislature provided for dividing
the state into local school districts, each of which
should have not more than six miles.

In 1923 the legislature established the county
as the school district and required the county boards
of education to prepare county-wide plans for the consoli-

dation of schools.

Utah

 

Information concerning reorganization Of school
districts in the state of Utah is rather meager since Utah
school districts have been organized on a county and cities
of first and second class basis since 1915. The only
move for any further reorganization of school districts
since 1915 came in the 1955 session of the legislature.

At that time the State Department of Education proposed
a bill to the legislature for elimination Of all districts

within counties wherein the total school population was

101

less than 4,000 children in said counties. However, the bill did
not pass. There are at the present time, in the state, three
such counties which in the 1915 reorganization were divided into
more than one school district for political and wealth reasons.
There have been no other changes. Utah has forty districts.
Virginia

The state of Virginia adopted the modified county unit

school through mandatory legislation in 1923.

West Virginia

 

In 1933 West Virginia's public school system adOpted the
county unit system. At that time the number Of school districts
was reduced from 397 to fifty-five. The situation remains the

same today.

SUMMARY

There are great variations in the type of reorganization
legislation adopted by the states. However, most state reorgani-
zation legislation has the following features:

*Its approach is statewide whenever reorganization is
needed.

*It provides for county or other local committees to make
studies of redistricting needs and to develop proposals for new
districts, which are submitted to the voters for ratification.

*It emphasizes systematic planning based on local con-
ditions and needs.

*It provides for a state administrative agency which is

empowered to deveIOp policies and procedures.

102

The goal in every state that is conducting re-
organization activities appears to be to reduce the
number of school districts in an effort to improve edu-
cational Opportunities. Many states have set minimum
standards for their school districts.

Much reorganization legislation is aimed at
consolidating elementary and secondary school districts
rather than maintaining them as separate administrative
units.

A great effort is being made to eliminate closed
school districts.

Although some states have limited reorganiza-
tion legislation, they are conducting extensive state-
wide studies in an effort to improve their school district
organization structure.

The county unit school district is advocated
more than any other as the most effective unit of school
administration. Several states have reorganized their
school systems as county units.

Many states have had their school districts
effectively reorganized through using permissive legis-
lation, but others have found it necessary to use '

mandatory school district reorganization legislation.

103

Several states have had no problem with school
district reorganization because the original organization
of their school districts, or early reorganization legis-
lation, provided satisfactory administrative units for
their educational programs. Others have numerous prob-
lems concerning school district reorganization but have
been backward in improving their situations.

Recent reorganization in some states is notable.
The North Dakota, Connecticutt, Kansas, Washington, and
Pennsylvania state legislatures have passed significant
school district reorganization legislation within the

past two years.

CHAPTER IV

EVOLUTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION
IN MICHIGAN

Origin of School Districts

 

The French occupied Michigan for 150 years, and
the English held it for another twenty-three years.
There is no record of a school having been established
in Michigan under either of the two governments. How-
ever, in 1783 Michigan was ceded to the United States,
and in 1785 the sixteenth section of each township was
pledged by the government for the support of schools.

The territory of Michigan was organized in 1805,
and the first school law was enacted by the territorial
. authorities in 1809. However, there is little informa—
tion concerning the law. The territorial government
ordered that school districts be established in populated
centers.

The first schools in Michigan were private and

were maintained in the city of Detroit in the early 1800's

 

1Michigan Superintendent of Public Instruction,
Historical Sketches of Education in Michigan, (Lansing:
WTiS. George 8 Co.,4188l) pp. 7-8.

104

 

1

105

The first state law passed in Michigan to provide
for a system of common or primary schools was in 1827.
This act provided that every township containing fifty
inhabitants or householders should employ a schoolmaster,
of good morals, to teach children to read and write, and
to instruct them in the English and French languages, as
well as in arithmetic, orthography and decent behavior,
for such terms of time as should be equivalent to six
months in each year. Every township containing one hun-
dred families or householders was to hold school for an
increased length of time; and to provide in addition a
schoolmaster or teacher to instruct children in the
English language. Every township containing 200 families
or householders was to be provided with a grammar school-
master of good morals, well instructed in the Latin,
French and English languages. If any township neglected
to procure and support such teacher as was required for
the various lengths of time, the township incurred a
penalty in proportion from fifty to one hundred and fifty
dollars; and the penalty was to be levied by warrant from
the court upon the inhabitants of the deficient township,
and was appropriated for the use of such schools that had
complied with the law, and whose circumstances most re-

quired such assistance. The inhabitants were to choose

106

five persons within their townships as inspectors of
common schools.1

In 1828 Congress authorized the Governor and
council to take charge of the school sections, to pro-
tect them from waste and injury, and to provide by law
for leasing them. In 1833 the Michigan school law of,
1828 was repealed and another act passed, which provided
for the election of three commissioners of schools and
ten inspectors, whose duties were more extensive than
they had been under the original law. They were charged
with the protection of section sixteen, with power to
lease and manage it in whatever manner they deemed best
calculated to enhance its value. Any funds arising from
such care and management were to be applied to the sup—
port of the common schools.

In 1835, the same year in which the law was
passed to form a Constitution and state government, an
amendment to the act of 1833 made it the duty of the
school commissioners to make yearly dividends of all
moneys coming into their hands by virtue of their Office,
for rents or damage done to section sixteen, and to dis-

tribute and pay over the amount to the directors, in

 

1Ibid., p. 11.

 

107

proportion to the number of pupils taught, according to

the provisions of the law of 1833.1

The First Legislature

 

The first legislature of the state of Michigan
convened at Detroit, November 2, 1835. The subject of
education did not receive attention at this time, but
at an extra session in 1836 the effective organization
of-the future school system came up for consideration.
The act for the organization of school districts was
passed in 1836. In 1837, in accordance with the act,
Mr. Pierce, who was later to be appointed the first
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, submitted

a comprehensive plan for a system of public instruction.

The Pierce Plan

 

When Michigan was admitted to statehood, there
were already fifty-five school districts in Operation.
The John D. Pierce Plan, which had been adopted by the
legislature in 1837, authorized each township board of
school inspectors, later the township board, to divide
the township into nine school districts of approximately

four square miles each. The boundaries of these primary

 

1Ibid., p. 12 and 13.

 

108

districts were subject to change by the township inspec-
tors in accordance with changing need. With very little
modification, several districts formed under this system
Of-primary school districts have come down to the pre-
sent day. Even in 1837, however, it was recognized that
the primary district was too small to support secondary
education, and the county accordingly was made the unit
for the academy or secondary school.1
This legislation resulted in the formation of a
new school district wherever an additional school was
needed. By 1850 the state had over 3,000 districts, and
by 1880 over 6,000. The peak number was reached in 1912,

i

when the total stood at 7,362 and did not drop below

7,000 until the early 1920's.2
Owing to the rapid increase in population in

many districts, especially:hivillages and cities, it

became necessary under the original law, which contem-

plated the employment of but one teacher in each district,

to divide the district in order to employ a sufficient

number of teachers. The people, however, did not favor

such divisions, and the legislature consequently

 

1Ibid., pp. 12 and 14.

2Fitzwater, op. cit., p. 204.

 

109

authorized the inspectors to form union school districts,
each having an enlarged board. Out of this ultimately
grew the graded and high school law which was enacted in
1859.1

Although the first graded school district was
established in the city of Detroit in 1842, it was not
until 1859 that the general graded act was passed which
established graded school districts throughout the state.
By this act a district having more than one hundred chil-
dren between the ages of five and twenty years was empowered
to organize as a graded district and to elect a board con-
sisting of six trustees. At the time this law was first
enacted, districts organizing under its provisions secured
much greater powers than they could exercise under the more

simple organization. Later, graded school districts were

also authorized to Operate a high school.

Special Act School Districts
In nearly all the incorporated cities of the
state and in several of the larger villages, the schools

were organized during later years under special enactments,

 

1Michigan Superintendent of Public Instruction,
op. cit., p. 22.

 

110

which made such provisions for the government and manage-
ment of the schools in cities and villages as seemed best
adapted to their immediate needs. These several enact-
ments are so dissimilar in character that no general
description of their provisions can be made in this

study.1

All but five of these special act districts were
repealed by July 1, 1966.

From the annual reports of the boards of school
inspectors, the statistics for Table Number 2 were com-
piled in order to show the whole number of school dis-

tricts, including all kinds, that were reported each year

from 1836 to 1880.

Union School Districts

 

All the early schools of Michigan were from
necessity ungraded schools, and no attempts were made
for several years after the organization of the school
system of the state to introduce the grading of schools.
The act of legislation for the grading Of schools was
that of 1843, providing for the formation of union school
districts. This law provided that whenever the board of

school inspectors of any township shall deem that the

 

llbid., p. 23.

111

 

TABLE 2
1836 - 55 1860 4,087
1837 - 382 1861 4,203
1838 - 1,020 1862 4,268
1839 - 1,325 1863 4,382
1840 - 1,506 1864 4,426
1841 - 2,215 1865 4,474
1842 - 2,312 1866 4,625
1843 - 2,410 1867 4,744
1844 - 2,518 1868 4,855
1845 - 2,683 1869 5,052
1846 - 2,869 1870 5,108
1847 - 2,942 1871 5,299
1848 - 3,071 1872 5,369
1849 - 3,075 1873 5,521
1850 - 3,097 1874 5,571
1851 - 3,307 1875 5,706
1852 - 3,383 1876 5,834
1853 - 3,410 1877 5,947
1854 - 3,465 1878 6,094
1855 - 3,514 1879 6,252
1856 - 3,525 1880 6,352
1857 - 3,748
1858 - 3,946
1859 - 3,968
1

Ibid., p. 23.

112

interests of any of the school districts would be best
promoted by so doing, they could form a single district
out of any two or more districts therein, and classify
the pupils in such district into two or more classes,
according to their proficiency and advancement in learn-
ing, and require that such pupils be taught in district
schools or departments as classified by them, and such
districts may have the same number Of schoolhouses, if
necessary, and raise the same amount of taxes which the
original districts forming the same could raise if not
united. Among the first to be organized under the pro-
visions of that law were the schools of Jonesville,
Flint, Coldwater, Marshall, and Battle Creek. Other
cities and villages were not slow in recognizing the
advantages to be gained by being so organized, and be-
fore many years had passed, a significant number had
availed themselves Of the provisions of this law. But
the decade from 1850 to 1860 was very largely a period

of experimentation in the history of the graded and union

schools.1

 

1Ibid., p. 36.

113

Secondary Education

 

The original secondary schools were established
as branches Of the University in 1837 when the law es-
tablishing the University was approved. Originally the
branches were supported from state funds, but this was
stopped due to lack of financial resources, and as a
result they began to fade.1

During the early years of the state's history,
quite a number of academies and seminaries were incor-
porated by special acts of the legislature, in each Of
which more or less secondary instruction was given.
However, there is very little on record concerning the
operation of these institutions. These academies and
seminaries increased udth.the decadence of the branches
of the University. Most Of these incorporated institu-
tions were under the fostering care of various religious
denominations. The legislature, in granting charters,
gave them a legal existence but extended no financial
aid to them.

During the decade from 1850 to 1860, there was

much doubt as to whether the secondary schools should be

made an integral part of the public school system of the

 

11bid., p. 49.

114

state or whether they should be left independent and
entirely to the fostering care of private corporations.
However, the academies and seminaries gradually began to
disappear before the advancing growth of the union school
system.1

A case that had great significance for secondary
education was heard by the Michigan Supreme Court in
1874. A suit had been filed to restrain the collection
of school taxes assessed for the support of the high
school in the Village of Kalamazoo. The Court upheld
the right of school authorities in union school districts
of the state to levy taxes upon the general public for
the support of high schools. From this time the public

school districts began to grow in numbers and usefulness.

Graded School District Act

 

It was found that the provisions of law were too
limited as to the powers granted school districts, and
as a consequence several cities, led by force of their
necessities, asked for and obtained from the legislature
special enactments. This fact, united with the experience

of sixteen years, prepared the way for the law Of 1859,

 

lIbid.

 

115

which gave to any district having not less than two hun-
dred children between the ages of four and eighteen
years, authority to organize as a graded and high school
district, and granted to districts that might so organize
much greater powers than could be secured under the pre—
vious general law. Two or more adjoining districts could
also, under this enactment, be united to form a graded
school district. In 1861, this law was changed so that
districts having at least one hundred children between
the ages of five and twenty years might be organized
under its provisions. Under the provisions of this law
the graded school districts of the state increased rapidly
until there were nearly 400 by 1880.1 Table Number 3
shows the growth of the graded school districts from

1859 to 1880.

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction
had great pride in the progress of education in Michigan
as is shown by his report in 1860:

The territory of the state is distributed into

more than four thousand school districts, each
having its group of homes and home interests and
its separate schoolhouse and school, where the
great work of educating the young goes on yearly.
In three thousand of these districts are living,
as shown by the school census of 1860, two hundred
and forty-six thousand six hundred and eighty-four

children, of the ages to which the law adjudges
instruction to be due.

 

1Ibid.

 

116

TABLE 3

GRADED SCHOOL DISTRICTS

1859 - 58 1870 - 248
1860 - 85 1871 - 266
1861 - 75 ' 1872 - 300
1862 - 106 1873 - 311
1863 - 119 1874 - 327
1864 - 123 1875 - 295
1865 - 147 1876 - 303
1866 - 148 1877 - 338
1867 - 179 1878 - 350
1868 - 208 1879 — 353

1869 - 235 1880 - 389

 

1Ibid., p. 38.

117

There were employed the past year in the
care of these schools and the education of these
children, seven thousand nine hundred and forty-
One teachers. Nearly two thousand citizens bore
the office and discharged the duties Of school
inspectors in the supervision of this work, and
more than twelve thousand district school offi-
cers were engaged in the management of the affairs
of the separate districts.

There is invested in school-houses and other
school property, in the primary school districts
of the state as shown even in the partial re-
turns, the magnificant sum of $1,506,616.34.

The wages of the teachers of the schools,
last year amounted to $467,286.50; and if we add
to this the amount paid to school officers, the
cost of school library and books, and the ex-
penses attendant upon maintaining children at
school, the whole annual cost of our educational
interest will fall little short of one million
dollars, a sum greater than the entire aggregate
of expenditures by the state government for all
other purposes.

In 1861 the superintendent of public instruction
continued his praise of the graded school district in
his annual report as he stated that if the graded school
district plan possessed the advantages claimed for it,
then a true policy would require that the schools in the
235 districts should be organized and taught as graded

schools. In all cases, he said, in which the number of

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1860.

118

pupils in attendance demanded the employment of more than

one teacher, the school should be graded.1

Continued Progress

 

The state superintendent's report in 1862 recom-
mended substitution Of the township school system in the
place of the district system. Legislation for this was
introduced in 1861 but left unfinished. The superinten-
dent recommended permissive reorganization laws for
township and town schools.2

The statistics of primary schools as gathered
from the reports of the school officers, were in most
respects, highly gratifying to the state superintendent
in 1865. The census Of children between the ages of
five and twenty years of age showed that in no other
year in the history of the state had the population in-

3 No

creased so much as during the school year 1865.
reports were received from certain districts, but exclu-

sive of those, the returns received showed an aggregate

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1861.

2Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1862.

3Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1865.

119

of 396,205, which was 15,433 more than the fall returns
of 1864. The actual gain, therefore, was put at some-
thing over seventeen thousand. The school census, com-
pared with the general, showed the whole population to
have been a little more than three times as great as the
number returned in the school census.

The 1865 superintendent's report stated there
were 132 graded school districts containing an aggregate
of 76,033 children between the ages of five and twenty.1

In 1866 no reports were received from eight
towns which in 1865 had reported 513 children, but still
reports were received from 735 townships and cities, an
increase of twenty-two. No new counties were reported.
The number of districts was reported as 4,625, an in-
crease over the previous year of 151. The number of
children between the ages of five and twenty years was
321,311, an increase during the year of 22,704, which
was the largest increase in the history of the state.

The number of counties from which reports were
received in 1867 was fifty-eight. This was the same
number as the year before, though the report from Chip-
pewa was omitted as had been that of Delta from the

last year. There were in the state sixteen other counties,

‘

1Ibid.

120

most of them without inhabitants. The number of town-
ships and cities was 774, an increase of forty-nine.
This increase was nearly all in the new counties, and
showed the rapid progress of settlement in the state.
The number of school districts reported was
4,744, an increase of 119. The inspector's report
showed 182 new districts organized. This discrepancy
showed that more districts failed to report than in
1866, though in some cases it was thought that two dis-
tricts had been made into one. The number of children
between five and twenty years of age was 338,244, an
increase of 117,108. The number reported attending
school was 243,161. This was a loss of over three
thousand, but it was one of the peculiarly unreliable
items. The number of graded schools reported in 1867
was 179, an increase of twenty-four. Also, the comment
was made that at that time almost one-third of the
children of the state were contained in 179 school

districts.1

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1866.

121

Further Consolidation

 

On February 7, 1867, the legislature by an act
which took immediate effect, established a new school
district out of parts of three old ones, in the same
township, and provided that a tax, levied in the latter
districts for 1866, should be collected in the same man—
ner as though they had remained unaltered, and that the
old districts, together with the new one, should respec-
tively be entitled to certain relative portions of the
whole tax. The township school inspectors Opposed this
act but the Supreme Court held that the action was legal.

The number of districts reported in 1868 was
4,843. Of these, 3,703 were whole districts and 1,140
were fractional, that is, situated partly in two or
more townships. Many of these fractional school districts
are still remaining in Michigan. The state superintendent
‘suggested that many evils had grown out of this organiza-
tion of districts in two, three, and sometimes four
townships; and that it should be avoided as far as pos-
sible. The increase in the number of districts reported

. . . 1
from the preVious year was ninety—nine.

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1868.

122

Dissolution and Annexation

 

A Supreme Court decision pertaining to the dis-
solution and annexation of school districts was written
in 1869. Under the statute in question the school in-
spectors of any township were empowered to divide the
township into such number of districts, and to regulate
and alter the boundaries of said school districts, as
was from time to time necessary, they could dissolve
one organized district and annex another.

The Opinion of the court was as follows:

It will be perceived that the number of dis-
tricts in any township is to be determined by
the school inspectors. This follows, necessarily,
from the language of the section, which confers
authority to divide the township from time to
time into such number of districts as may be
necessary. If they may divide the township into
twelve districts, why may they not divide it
into ten, by enlarging the boundaries of one or
more of those in existence? or which is the same
thing, by annexing two or more so as to consti-
tute but one district as may from time to time
in the judgment of the inspectors become neces-
sary. The power could not, perhaps, be derived
from the words regulate and alter the boundaries.
but these words taken in connection with the
authority to divide from time to time as may be
necessary, justified, legally, the order made by
the inspectors.

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1869.

123

A question also arose in 1869 concerning the
establishment of school systems in newly formed town-
ships. The court gave the following opinion:

The question will admit of but one answer.
Upon becoming one of the organized townships of
the state, without special conditions, it be-
comes a township within the meaning of the Con—
stitution and laws, and clothed with the same
rights and powers, and subject to the same
duties which belong to new townships generally.
It was the equal in rights and duties of all
new townships not specially fettered by parti-
cular legislation.

Such being the status of the new township,
the people were entitled and required to con-
form in all respects to the general laws of
the state bearing upon townships and township
affairs. They were required to elect school
officers, organize school districts, and to
institute and set in motion a complete system
from the beginning.

Recommendations for Consolidation

 

The tendency to divide the territory into smaller
districts has been referred to throughout this study.
The disposition continued through the 1870's, even in
sparsely settled portions of the state. The desire to
be near the schoolhouse led to these divisions. The
results, according to the state superintendent, were
feeble districts, unable to build only small school-

houses and employ inferior teachers at a cost for each

 

1Ibid.

124

pupil of twice and Often more than twice, the cost for
a pupil in the best schools in the cities and large
towns. The superintendent further explained that there
is a limit to the division of territory into districts,
beyond which it was not profitable to go, although it
might be convenient.

The state superintendent went even further and
definitely stated that the best method of districting
the state was to make the township constitute the school
district. He went on to suggest that the formation of
small districts should not be encouraged and unless
there were most manifest advantages to be secured by a
division, it should never be done.

The number of organized counties from which re-
ports were received in 1871 was sixty-seven, an increase
of three over the last year. The number of townships
and cities was 883. This was an increase of twenty-five,
besides nine towns whose reports were not received. The
number of districts was 5,299, an increase of one hundred
and ninety-one. The number of new districts organized
was one hundred and ninety-six. The number of children
reported attending school was 292,466, but 533 districts

with an aggregate census of 14,729, failed to report any

125

attendance. If these districts were added to the others,
it made something more than 300,000 who attended school
in 1870.1

A change in the pace of school district develop-
ment and attendance figures was noted in the SUperinten-
dent's report of 1880. He indicated that the statutes
showed an unsatisfactory situation. With an increase in
the number of school children during the previous year
of 10,187, the total attendance in school was 17,564 less
than during the year ending September 2, 1878. The year
which ended September 6, 1880, on the other hand, showed
an increase in the school census of 19,228 and in the
total attendance of 1,190 greater than the increase in
the total number of school children and a consequent in-
crease of 1.4 in the percentage of attendance. The num-
ber of graded schools reported was 389, an increase of
thirty-six over the previous year.2

A few years later, in 1889, the number of dis-
tricts had increased fifty-eight, making 7,145 districts

in the state at that time. Of this number, 7,046 were

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1871.

2Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1880.

126

reported as having maintained school, and the superin-
tendent's report showed that school was maintained in
thirty-three districts more in 1889 than in 1888. The
school census had increased 10,146 and a peculiar fea-
ture of this increase and one that had been observed
for four or five years previously, was that it all came
from the graded school districts. There had been for
several years a steady increase in the census of the
graded districts over that of the ungraded districts.
The total enrollment in all the schools was 423,604, or
66.1 percent of the school census. The graded schools
showed an increase of 3,285 in the enrollment, but this
was overbalanced by the 4,899 decrease in the ungraded
districts, so that the total gives a decrease in the
enrollment of 1,614. There were 503 graded school dis-
tricts with a total enrollment of 201,087, or an average
of 654 pupils to each district. There were also 6,642
ungradeddistricts with a total enrollment of 310,885,

or an average of forty-six pupils to each district.1

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1889.

127

Upper Peninsula Township Act

 

The Graded School Act made no provisions for
secondary education in the more sparsely settled rural
areas of the state, and when this situation became par-
ticularly serious in the Upper Peninsula, the legisla-
ture, in 1891, approved the Township School District
Act. This law permitted formation of township school
districts in the Upper Peninsula.1

In 1900 the state superintendent offered several
reasons for the consolidation of school districts. He
indicated that there were too many school districts, and
therefore too many schoolhouses and too many teachers
employed. He also stated that as the counties had
grown older the forests and swamps had disappeared, the
roads had become better, and the means of transportation
easier. Yet notwithstanding the fact that school faci-
lities had greatly increased, the number of children of
school age in many districts had constantly decreased.

In many districts where there had been fifty school
children thirty years before, there were in 1900 scarcely
half that number, and little prospect that the schools
would gain their former enrollment unless the territory

of the district were greatly enlarged.

 

1Thaden, op. cit., p. 13.

 

128

Recommendations for Minimum Standards

 

The Superintendent of Public Instruction in
1900 proceeded to make definite recommendations: Ordi-
narily, no township should contain more than six school
districts; eight should be the maximum. A county
school of only ten or a dozen pupils was considered
too small to support a teacher and too small for the
best work of the pupils themselves. An example presented
was of a county with just seven districts to a township
which would make a county of sixteen townships contain
112 districts. Used as an example were several counties
containing sixteen townships, each approximately six
miles square, or having thirty-six square miles. Barry
County had 146 districts; Kalamazoo 138; Eaton 146;
Ingham 136; Livingston 135; Clinton 129; Ionia 143; and
Gratiot 132. It was indicated in the report that there
were 1,105 school districts in those counties when 900
would have been sufficient.

It was suggested that school districts should
be reorganized and many of them abandoned. Township
boards of inspectors were told to enlarge districts in-
stead of making new ones. The legislature was asked to
repeal that part of the school law limiting districts

to nine sections of land; and Grange's and Farmer's Clubs

129

who protested against the inequalities of taxation were
told to regulate some of the inequalities fostered by
themselves.1

There were 671 districts in the entire state in
1898 in which were enrolled 56,779 school children.
There were 449 teachers and 23,966 pupils in all the
township districts of the state. At the time of the
passage of the law of 1891 for the organization of town-
ship districts, there had been only eight township dis-
tricts in the entire state of Michigan. In 1893, sixty-
seven townships had been reported as organized into
single school districts, and that number constantly grew
until in September 1898 there were 115 township districts--
ninety-two in the Upper Peninsula, and twenty-three in
Lower Michigan. All except four of the 136 districts
in the Upper Peninsula were organized under the 1891
Act.

The state superintendent took a strong stand for
school district consolidation in 1906 as he said the
following:

One of the serious economic questions of the

day is that which considers the alarming fact of
the great congestion of our pOpulation in the

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1900.

130

large cities and the consequent depopulation of
our rural districts. The causes of this are
many, but among them is the fact that in in-
creasing numbers our boys and girls are clearly
recognizing, as they should, that their genera-
tion will, in a more emphatic sense than is true
at present, be an educated generation, and if
they are to maintain themselves they must have
better training than is afforded by the ordi—
nary district school. As-a result of this some
are going out from the country homes to the
cities and towns to seek a high school education.

In the opinion of many the remedy lies in
the consolidation of districts and the estab-
lishment of central schools.

Three methods have been suggested by which
the central school idea may be realized.

First, it is suggested that the smaller and
weaker districts shall be consolidated and that
the number in each township shall be reduced to
four. A fifth district will be made at the cen-
ter of the township and a high school building
erected large enough to accommodate the children
of all grades living in the district and all the
high school pupils from the entire township. A
second plan, known as the Ohio Plan, consists of
the abandonment of all the district schools in a
township and the massing of all the pupils into
one central school . . . a third plan is that
suggested by the law passed at the last legisla-
ture of Michigan known as the Humphrey Rural
High School Bill. This law is only applicable
to townships in which there is not already exist-
ing a village or graded school.

The central school high school would eventu-
ally become the social center of the consolidated
district. In its assembly room could be given
courses of lectures and there might be held
teachers' and patrons' meetings, debates, concerts,
etc., etc. The Farmers' Club also might gather
at this central point for natural consultation as
to wages and means of making life better. The men-
tal and social horizon of every man, woman, and

131

child would thus be enlarged, and life take on a
deeper and more blessed meaning.

One thing more should be said. There is no dis-
position on the part of this department to influence
the people to do something which their own best
judgments will not, to the fullest extent, commend.
The whole matter is very properly in the hands of
the people themselves and no man or set of men can
carry out any reform without their approval. Laws
bearing on the subject should contain the referendum.
The purpose of this department will be accompanied
when the facts have been placed before the people
for their consideration.

Tax for Transportation and Tuition

 

The legislature of 1903 provided that the dis-
tricts formed under the township unit act might vote a
tax for the transportation of pupils to and from school,
and that the district might use the funds derived from
the mill tax for the purpose of transporting pUpils.
Provision was also made by which the district might vote
a tax sufficient to pay the tuition and daily transpor-
tation of qualified students to any high school which
the school board might select. This made secondary
school instruction possible but avoided the necessity
of establishing a rural high school. So far as legal

authority was concerned, consolidation of schools, rural

 

1George J. Jackson, The Development of State
Control of Public Instruction in Michigan, (Lansing:
Michigan Historical Commission, 1926), p. 127.

 

 

132

high schools, transportation of, pupils, and high school
transportation were provided, and theoretically at least
the children of rural communities had achieved somewhat

equal educational Opportunity.1

Inc reas iog Population

 

The 1909 superintendent's report indicated that
there had been a thirty percent increase in the total
pOpulation of the state in the preceding ten years ac-
cording to the federal census. School population of
the state had increased twenty-three percent, enrollment
in the primary and secondary schools, twenty-eight percent.

A line drawn east and west through the center
of the Lower Peninsula would have shown that sixty per-
cent of the counties showing an increase of population
during the decade were south of this line. An examina-
tion of the percentages of total population enrolled in
school by each county and the percentages of those of
school age enrolled showed that the counties ranking
lowest in these two items were situated in the same'sec-
131011 of the state in which the individual growth had

been so rapid.

‘1

1Ibid., p. 129.

133

The superintendent's report mentioned that the
.Janues Law effect would be interesting to note in the
futnare. This law provided for the establishment of
Continuation Schools in cities of five thousand and
cyveir. This law made it compulsory for all minors under
eighteen years of age who had left school to attend one
of? these schools during a certain period of the week.

A total of 146 township units had been established
by 21909, under the 1891 law which permitted formation of
township school districts in the Upper Peninsula. In
1909,, legislation was enacted which permitted formation
of stich districts anywhere in the state.1 Districts
fornued under this act were generally unsatisfactory, both
educxitionally and sociologically. The township was an
artiaficial land surveyor's unit and rarely had any re-
latiJan to the natural community.2

In 1910 an act was passed amending the free tui-
tion. law. The failure to define a high school and an
eighth grade graduate previously prevented the perfect Operation
of the law. The amendment defined a high school as a

graded district maintaining twelve grades of work with at

 

1Fitzwater, loc. cit.

 

2Thaden, op. cit., p. 13.

 

134

least two teachers devoting their entire teaching time
to the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades. It
also provided that a child must hold a county eighth
grade diploma in order to have his tuition paid, or have
passed the eighth grade in a graded district, or have
had his tuition paid the previous year under the free
tuition law. Thus provision was made for an eighth
grade examination by the Superintendent of Public In-
struction which previously had been unauthorized. The
law was one which very directly benefited boys and girls
of the rural communities. The implications were that
the number of these pupils to receive a high school

education would be greatly increased.1

Significant Legislation

 

Two acts with significance for school district
reorganization were approved in 1911. One amended the
township unit law by providing that women could vote on
the question of organizing under that law and sign peti-
tions for it, and also provided that graded districts
having a population of nine hundred or less could be in-

cluded in a township unit district. Act sixty-one provided

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1910.

135

that township boards could change the boundaries of pri-

mary districts organized by special act of the legislature.1
Michigan had, in 1914, over two hundred high

schools with a total enrollment of fifty thousand. More

than three-fourths of these were in small cities and

villages. They served communities that were distinctively

agricultural or that were surrounded by agricultural ter-

ritory. Approximately one-third of the high school

pupils of the whole state were non-residents, and these

came largely from the rural districts. These facts,

according to the state superintendent, were gratifying

to educators because they indicated that parents recog-

nized the value of an education above that prescribed

by law and in advance of that given by the high schools.

The superintendent's report recommended the 7-12 and

K-6 plan of organization as well as specific courses for

each grade.2

Rural Agricultural School District Act

 

In 1917 the legislature enacted the Rural Agri-

cultural School District Act, which permitted consolidation

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1911.

2Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1914.

136

of three or more contiguous rural districts into a single
administrative unit. This was an attempt to adapt the
local rural school district structure to changing econo-
mic, education, social and fiscal needs. The act provided
specifically for the merger of three or more adjoining
districts with a total assessed valuation of not less
than $700,000 or a total land area of not less than
eighteen sections.1

A summary of the reorganization activity and the
state superintendents under which it occurred from 1842
to 1918 is given on the following pages:

Sawyer 1842 Legislature permitted Detroit to orga-
nize as one school district.

Comstock 1843 Legislature extended the above provi-
sion to any township containing a city
or village.

Comstock 1844 Favored consolidation of districts in
cities and villages.

Comstock 1846 Legislature permitted the districts
in any township to consolidate.

Mayhew 1847 Advocated the establishment of union
schools in every county of the state.

Shearman 1850 Stressed the preparatory function of
the union school.

Mayhew 1857 Defined the term union school.

 

Gregory 1859 Legislature enacted the high school law.

 

1Thaden, O . cit., p. 13.

Gregory
Gregory

Gregory
Hosford
Briggs

Gower

Gass

Estabrook

Fitch

Fall

Wright

Johnson

moved slowly at first.

1860
1861

1864
1866
1873
1880

1883

1888

1891

1901

1908

1918

137

Recommended the township unit plan.

Defined the term union school. Outlined
a course of study for union schools.
Enumerated the advantages of the town-
ship unit plan.

Urged the township unit plan.
Urged the township unit plan.
Urged the township unit plan.

Enumerated the values of the township
unit plan.

Presented arguments for the township
unit plan.

Recommended that voters be given op-
portunity to express themselves with
respect to adoption of the township

unit plan.

Legislature permitted townships of the
Upper Peninsula to organize on the
township unit plan if so desired.

Aggressively advocated school consoli-
dation.

Township unit plan a means of solving
the rural school problem. Constitu—
tional revision extended act of 1891
to the entire state.

Asked for reorganization of schools
through consolidation as a means of
solving the problem of the rural
school.

Establishment of Rural Agricultural Districts

By 1920 only six had been formed,

 

1Jackson, op. cit., pp. 131-132.

138

but in 1925 there were forty-eight, and in 1930, eighty-
one. As of 1930 there were 6,159 districts of primary
grades and 673 high school districts for a total of
6,832 school districts in the state.1

In 1931 it was made possible for any primary
school district in any township, regardless of location,
to be annexed to any township school district after each
district had voted in favor of annexation. Also, the
board of education of a rural agricultural school or
township school was given authority to pay tuition and
provide transportation for any or all pupils to a near-
by graded township, city or rural agricultural school
district. Such sending schools were entitled to receive
the regular state aid for transportation of pupils as
was provided for rural agricultural schools.2

The rural agricultural school district occupied
a unique position as a special type of school district
in Michigan. By the 1940-41 school year the rural agri-

cultural school districts had increased to 143.

 

1Fitzwater, op. cit., p. 205

2Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1931.

139

Community School Districts

 

The superintendent's report for the 1937-39
biennium indicated that major changes in school districts
had, for the most part, been made to establish community
school districts. He recommended studying carefully
several factors for the organization of a sound compre-
hensive educational program which could be operated
economically. Following are the factors which were
listed as having a direct relationship to the program
of community school district reorganization:

a. Knowledge of the history of the community

b. Population, data, trends, and locations

c. Roads

d. Land use

e. Curriculum needs

f. School organization within the proposed
district

Transportation needs
h. Budget, surveys, maps, miscellaneous data
1. Public relations and social interpretation
It was further stated that the question of
determining the boundaries of enlarged school districts,

the type of such district to be maintained, and the

140

location of these schools was a problem for the people
within the local area to decide.1

The superintendent, in 1940, explained that re-
organization programs were being more generally accepted
because it was possible to offer more complete instruc—
tional programs at less unit cost. However, the savings
made were usually absorbed by the demand for more complete
community programs of education. It was pointed out
that reorganization programs did not necessarily require
the transportation of children to some central spot. In
fact, it was often much more desirable to educate the
elementary children relatively close to their homes and
thus avoid the high costs of transportation. Reorganiza-
tion was spoken of as a measure to avoid the unsatisfactory
situation which was described as a crazy quilt pattern
with blocks of greatly varying wealth all within a natural
community of interests.

The number of pupils attending high schools from
districts not maintaining grades beyond the eighth for
whom the state paid tuition grew from 33,620 in 1933-34

to 46,641 in 1939-40, notwithstanding the fact that the

number of rural schools in the state had been reduced by

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1937-39.

141

the legal organization of community schools during that
period. Out of every 100 on the school census in primary
school districts 9.3 went to high school in 1933, but
that number had increased to 15.4 in 1939-40, an in-
crease of sixty-five percent.

The state superintendent, in his 1940 report,
requested a law which would allow debts to be paid by
the property upon which it was originally levied fol-
lowing reorganization. Districts were hesitating to
consolidate because of an existing debt for which they
had no responsibility.1

In 1942, Michigan had a total of 6,274 school
districts. Of the 6,274 school districts, 108 were urban
districts centered around incorporated places of 2,500
or more inhabitants. The other 6,166 were rural districts.
Of these, 159 were township districts; 173 were agricul-
tural school districts; 134 were districts in suburban
areas; and 102 districts were centered around villages

with less than 2,500 inhabitants.1

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1940.

2Michigan Department of Public Instruction,

Rural Michigan, op. cit., p. 13.

 

142

Michigan Public Education Study Commission

 

A comprehensive study Of the educational system
in Michigan was carried out by the Michigan Public Edu-
cation Study Commission, which reported its recommenda-
tions and findings in 1942.

These recommendations and findings were summarized
by Thaden as follows:1 All currently organized districts
of less than 10,000 population should be reorganized:

(1) around relatively self-sufficing and permanent
natural centers of populations, (2) with at least three
million dollars of state equalized real and personal
prOperty valuation with possible exceptions where pOpula-
tion density is low, and (3) capable of adequately serv-
ing a minimum enrollment of 360 students from the seventh
through the twelfth grades.

School district maps showed possible reorganiza-
tions of districts that would meet the three major
provisions just stated. About one—half of the 533 twelve—
grade school districts existing in 1944 did not meet all
three of the provisions.

Fitzwater reporting the same commission's recom-
mendations, points out that the 6,239 districts existing

in 1942 would be reduced to 253. The commission recommended

 

1Thaden, op. cit., p. 16.

143

that a nine-member county committee should be created in
each county to assist in the organization of school dis-
tricts. Each committee would study the commission's
preliminary reorganization proposals for the county and
within two years submit a report of its recommendations

1 Apparently the state

to the state superintendent.

superintendent was expected to implement the proposals.
Although the commission's recommendations were

not incorporated in new legislation, they did stimulate

reorganization activity. During the next four years,

from 1944-45 to 1948-49 school year, the total number

of districts in the state was reduced by 966. This was

a rate of reduction nearly four times that of the pre-

vious four-year period. The number of rural agricultural

districts increased from 189 to 242 and township districts

from 171 to 186.

Primary Districts

 

In 1943 there were 1,117 primary districts which
closed their schools completely. In most instances the
pupils were transported to districts with twelve grades
rather than to adjoining primary districts. In addition,

there were over 500 other primary districts which did not

 

1Fitzwater, op. cit., p. 206-207.

144

offer a complete eight-grade program but closed one or

more grades. Their pupils also were usually transported

to districts with twelve grades.l

Area Studies Program

 

lature

1.

An area studies program was passed by the legis-

in 1949. It had the following provisions:

Area studies based on a county, a portion of a
county, portionsof two or more contiguous coun-
ties, Or on two or more entire counties were to
be authorized by the state superintendent of
public instruction upon receipt of a petition
and plan for the proposed study.

A petition and plan for an area study could be
initiated in three ways: (a) by the county
board of education, (b) by the county superin-
tendent of schools, or (c) by local citizens
numbering at least five per cent of the total
vote cast within the proposed area in the last
preceding general election.

All proposals for setting up an area study were
to be subject to the approval of the state super-
intendent. He was also required to prescribe

the procedures for the establishment and termina-
tion of area studies.

The proposed plan had to designate the membership
of the area study committee. The members selected
were to be proportionately representative of urban
and rural areas as nearly as practicable.

The functions of an area study committee included
(a) making a comprehensive study of educational
conditions and needs of the area, and recommending

 

1Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Rural

Michigan, op. cit., p. 13.

145

changes in school district organization which,
in the judgment of the committee, would afford
better educational Opportunities, more efficient
and economical administration of public schools,
and a more equitable sharing of public school
support; (b) conferring with school authorities
and residents of school districts of the area,
holding public hearings, and providing informa-
tion about educational conditions and needs to
school officials and to the public generally;
and (c) making a report to the state superin-
tendent within two years. This report was to
deal with educational conditions and needs of
the area and was to include a map or maps show-
ing boundaries of existing school districts, the
location of school lands and buildings, school
transportation routes, and the boundaries of
recommended school districts.

6. Area study committees were empowered to accept
contributions toward the cost of making area
studies, and such contributions might be in
money, services or materials.

An analysis of the reports of counties conducting
area studies indicated much more extensive reorganization
activity occurring than in other counties. In nineteen
counties having an area studies program the total number
of districts was reduced by one-fourth. Two counties re-
duced their districts by more than half, and another had
a reduction of nearly one-half.2

In the 1947-48 school year there were 5,186 dis-

tricts in the state. Of this number, more than 4,000 were

 

1Fitzwater, op. cit., p. 208.

2Ibid.

 

146

primary districts. Slightly over 1,000 districts that
year were sending their pupils to other school districts.1
Several of these 1,000 were closed districts and sent all
their pupils to other school districts.

In 1950 the state superintendent reported there
were still 1,000 closed school districts in the state,
each retaining a board of education and having a budget,
but hiring other school districts to do the work of edu-
cation for which they were originally created. He
recommended that the closed districts be annexed to

neighboring operating districts.2

Reorganization Progress

 

As of January 1, 1951 the superintendent's re-
port indicated there were 4,860 school districts in
Michigan. Consolidation of a group of contiguous dis-
tricts into one district had resulted in the unification
of 123 former districts into sixteen new districts dur-
ing the year from July 1, 1948, to June 30, 1949, and of
sixty-five former districts into nine new districts
during the year from July 1, 1949 to July 1, 1950. Dur-
ing the corresponding periods, fifty-seven districts and

sixty-two districts, respectively, were annexed to other

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1947-48.

2Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1950.

147

districts. Thus, at that time, consolidation and annexa-
tion remained the two general procedures by which reorga-
nization of school districts could be accomplished.1

The School Facilities Survey published in 1953
indicated that as of March 1, 1951 there were 4,810 in-
dividual school districts existing in the state. Of
this total, 858 (17.8 percent) were educating 91.7 per-
cent ofthe publicschool children. The remaining pupils
were being served by 2,986 separate school administrative
units. In addition, one-fifth of the school districts,
966, had closed their doors and were operating no school
at all.2

The 1952-54 biennial report of the superintendent
of public instruction indicated that 300 school districts
had joined with other districts to create more efficient
and effective school operating units during the previous
year. This was the greatest progress ever made in school
district reorganization in the history of the state. The
report recommended legislation that would eliminate closed
school districts as a major step in the improvement of

the educational structure.

 

1Report of the Michigan Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1951.

2School Facilities Survey, 1953.

148

From the previous biennial report total of 4,249
school districts, the number had been reduced to 3,491
as of July 1, 1956. This indicated a decrease of more
than one school district per day during the two-year
period. Eighty-two percent of all children on the school
census were residents of K-12 districts. However, only
542 of the state's 3,491 school districts were of the
K-12 type. Again the state superintendent recommended
legislation to encourage the development of school dis-
tricts large enough and strong enough to provide sound

educational programs through at least grade twelve.1

Mandatory Legislation

 

The Michigan Legislature's first departure from
permissive legislation came in 1955 when it passed a
law to legislate closed school districts out of existence.
The law provided that within two years every district
that did not operate a school would be attached to an
Operating district. This law caused the elimination of
over 200 school districts in the state of Michigan.

Both the township district and the rural agri-

cultural school district were embodied in the fourth

 

1Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruc-
tion, 1952-54.

149

class school district act of 1955. The legislature
provided that each school district organized as a graded
township or rural agricultural school become a school
district of the fourth class.1
In 1959 there were 2,360 individual school dis-
tricts in the state of Michigan. This was 193 fewer
than the 2,553 districts existing on July 1, 1958. In
terms of grades Operated, 545 school districts were
classified as twelve-grade districts. The remaining
1,815 administrative units provided less than a twelve-
grade program or were closed and provided no educational
program at all.2
At the end of December, 1961, there were 552
high school districts, but only 537 Of them offered a
K-12 program; the other fifteen were not Operating a
full twelve-grade program. The 552 high school districts
had over ninety-one percent of all pupils in membership
and had over ninety-one percent of the state equalized

valuation. On the other hand the remaining 1,355 dis-

tricts had less than nine percent of the state equalized

 

1Thaden, op. cit., p. 22.

 

2Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Re-
port of the Administrative Services Division, 1958-59.

150

valuation and less than nine percent of all pupils in
membership. There were 1,907 school districts in the
state.1

On May 5, 1962, there were 1,824 school districts
in the state of Michigan. This number was 136 less than
the total existing on March 1, 1961, the date of the last
superintendent's report. Of the total of 1,824 school
districts, 553 were classified as twelve-grade districts;
the remaining 1,271 districts provided less than a com-
plete twelve-grade program.

In the 1962 report, the state superintendent re-
commended that attention be focused on the problem of
the small high school. It was explained that 130 of the
136 school districts having less than 200 secondary stu-
dents could be eliminated through reorganization without
causing pupils to have long distances to travel. The
superintendent further recommended that extensive regional
reorganization studies be initiated and encouraged and
that small districts be counseled to work cooperatively

with their neighbors.2

 

1Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Report
of the Administrative Services Division, 1961.

2Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Report
of the Administrative Services Division, 1962.

151

On June 30, 1963, there were 1,590 school dis-
tricts of all types in the state of Michigan. This was
205 fewer than existed on the same date one year
previous. Of the 1,590 school districts existing at
that time, 554 offered programs from kindergarten
through grade twelve.

Although the vast majority of mergers consisted
of the annexation of primary districts to K-12 districts,
other kinds of reorganization were taking place.

During the preceding year, fourteen primary
districts were annexed to other non-K-lZ districts
forming larger elementary administration units. In
twelve cases, large fourth class non-K-lZ districts were
annexed by K-lZ districts, thus unifying total program
administration. In three instances, existing K-lZ dis—
tricts were annexed to other K-lZ districts in order to
provide a more adequate administrative unit and offer a
more comprehensive program.

Through the consolidation method, four mergers
took place involving two K-12 districts in each case.
Two new consolidations for elementary purposes were
completed, and one new K-12 district was established

by this method.

152

Public Act 289

 

The passage of Public Act 289 Of 1964 by the
Michigan Legislature made reorganization studies manda-
tory on an intermediate district basis. The intent of
these studies was not only to incorporate all non-high
school districts into those Operating K-lZ programs, but,
through reorganization, to combine effectively existing
districts into units capable of offering a comprehensive
educational program through grade twelve.

At the time of the passage of Act 289, Michigan
had 545 school districts classified as K-12 and 893 non-

K-lZ districts.1

w

Very little progress was made in the establish-
ment of schools in Michigan until 1827, at which time
the first law was passed requiring that townships con-
taining at least fifty inhabitants provide schools.
When Michigan was admitted to statehood, however, there

were already fifty-five school districts in operation.

1Michigan Department of Public Instruction,
Report of the Administrative Services Division, 1964.

153

Originally, school districts in Michigan were
organized on the basis of local need and not as a part
of an overall plan. In most cases the school districts
were small and designed to support a one-room, one-teacher
elementary school.

The need for expanded school districts and more
advanced educational progress became obvious at an early
date. The very first state superintendent of public
instruction recommended legislatiOn for further reorgani-
zation, and most of the state superintendents thereafter
recommended reorganization of the school districts in
the state.

The state of Michigan had over 3,000 school dis-
tricts by 1850 and 6,000 by 1880. The peak number was
reached in 1912, when the total was 7,362 and did not
drop below 7,000 until the early 1920's.

Special act school districts were formed in
several villages and incorporated cities. All but five
of them have now been repealed.

The early schools of Michigan were ungraded union
schools.

The Graded School District Act, which provided
that any district having not less than 200 children be-

tween the ages Of four and eighteen years could organize

154

as a graded and high school district, was passed in
1859. The graded school districts increased rapidly.

The original secondary schools were established
as branches of the university in 1837, and there was a
question as to whether the secondary schools should be
made part of the public school system or whether they
should be left to the care of private corporations.
However, the academies and seminaries disappeared as
the union school system advanced. I

The Supreme Court in 1866 held that school dis-
tricts within the same townships could be united and
could collect taxes. The court also held that the com-
missioners could dissolve and annex school districts
in their townships.

The Graded School District Act for the Upper
Peninsula was approved in 1891. This law permitted the
formation of township unit school districts in the Upper
Peninsula.

The state superintendents continued to recommend
school consolidation in order to improve quality of
education in state school districts.

Provision was made by the 1903 legislature for
school boards to vote a tax for the transportation and

tuition of pupils to high school.

155

School population continued to increase with the
growth of the state's population.

In 1911, the Township Unit Law was amended by
providing that women could vote on the question of
organizing school districts and that graded school dis-
tricts could be included in the formation of a township
unit district.

In 1917, the Rural Agricultural School Act was
enacted, which permitted the consolidation of three or
more contiguous rural districts into a single administra-
tive unit.

A summary of the reorganization activity from
1842 to 1918 shows that each of the state superintendents
had encouraged reorganization of school districts.

The Michigan Public Education Study Commission
made comprehensive recommendations for school district
reorganization in 1942. This study greatly stimulated
reorganization activity, although its provisions were
not adopted by the state legislature.

The Area Studies Program was approved by the
legislature in 1949. This study contributed to exten-
sive school district reorganization in various counties

Of the state.

156

The Michigan Legislature's first departure from
permissive to mandatory legislation came in 1955 when it
legislated schools with closed districts out of existence.

The reports of the state superintendents of public
instruction continued to show progress in the reorganiza-
tion of school districts and to recommend further reor-
ganization legislation.

Finally, the passage of Public Act 289 of 1964
by the Michigan Legislature made reorganization studies

mandatory on an intermediate district basis.

CHAPTER V

AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC ACT 289
Evolution of Public Act 289

Throughout the entire history of the state of
Michigan, school district reorganization has been taking
place, and legislation pertaining to it has been passed.
Interestingly enough, despite all the conflict over re-
organization, almost every superintendent of public in-
struction has asked, at one time or another, for additional
legislation to force or at least stimulate school district
reorganization in an attempt to equalize educational Oppor-
tunities for all youngsters in the state.

Added to the activity of reorganization that has been
taking place in the state is the progress that other states
have been making in the area of school district reorganization.
Many of them passed legislation identical to the Michigan act,
while others approved legislation pertaining to reorganization
of their school districts which was much more mandatory than
that of Michigan.

The Area Studies Act Of 1949 had a particular
effect upon the people of Michigan who were responsible

for public education. Due to the information and

157

158

recommendations defined in this study, reorganization was
considered to be needed more than ever before.1

An important individual study to have an out-
standing effect was the one Of Roland Strolle in 1955 as
he declared many of the school districts in the state of
Michigan were inadequate and reorganization was desperately
needed.2 Many of his specific recommendations were adOpted
by those who prepared Public Act 289.

Changing economic needs, growth of population,
and demand for better education were all factors in the
creation of Public Act 289.

Therefore, it can easily be determined that this
act evolved through very natural processes as the state

legislation changed, as other states set precedents, and

as SOphisticated studies showed need.

Description of the Legislation

 

Public Act 289 of 1964 was approved by the legis-
lature March 31, 1964. The purpose of the act was to

stimulate school district reorganization by providing

 

1Fitzwater, op. cit., p. 208.

 

2Strolle, loc. cit.

 

159

for the study and development of plans for the reorgani—
zation of school districts and for elections to accomplish

reorganization.

State Committee

 

A state committee was appointed by the Governor,
composed of seven members, one who represented the Upper
Peninsula, one the area above the Bay City-Muskegon line,
and five representing the remainder of the state. The
state superintendent was appointed non-voting chairman
of the committee.

The duties of the committee were to develop
policies and procedures for a statewide school district
reorganization program planned so that all areas could
become part of a twelve grade school system, direct
area surveys and develop a manual of procedure for in-
termediate superintendents of schools, review and approve
or reject intermediate district plans, and present a
yearly progress report to the legislature. The state
committee was directed to make a final report to the
state legislature on or before September 1, 1968.

The State Committee established the following
principles for reorganization of school districts:

1. First in importance is quality and breadth

of education programs.

160

School districts should be organized around com-
munity centers or combinations of community
centers, and villages or neighborhood centers,
when identifiable, should not be divided be-
tween two Or more proposed units.

Neighborhood schools on all levels shall be
continued and new ones established whenever
and wherever the school population justifies
such neighborhood schools.

The plan should consider the utilization of
good existing educational facilities now
available or under construction.

The boundaries of proposed school districts
should make for geographical compactness, and
for efficient bus transportation.

Barriers to efficient transportation of pupils,
such as lakes, rivers, forests, swamps, and
expressways, should be a factor in the deter-

mination of school district boundaries.

. Whenever population density permits, the

proposed district unit should have, or should
have an early potential for, a total K-lZ
puplic school minimum enrollment Of 2,000 or

more.

161

8. The ability to finance a school program
should be a consideration in planning the
school district. (Author's note: $12,000
per pupil.)

9. The plan for the proposed school district
organization within the intermediate dis—
trict shall be based on a comprehensive study
of present educational conditions and present
and future educational needs. (Studies that
have been completed recently in an inter-
mediate school district may be used to the
extent that such studies conform to the

guidelines proposed by the State Committee.)1

Intermediate Committees

 

A committee composed of eighteen registered re-
sident electors was formed in each intermediate district
of the state. Three members were appointed from the
intermediate board of education, five members were
elected to represent the school districts operating

less than twelve grade programs, and five members fairly

 

1Michigan Department of Public Instruction,
Guidelines for School District Reorganization, Depart-
ment Of Public Instruction, 1964, p. 17.

 

162

representing all areas of the intermediate district were
appointed by the probate judge.

The responsibility of the intermediate district
committee was to follow the procedure guide prepared by
the state committee. The Obligation of the intermediate
committee was also to hold public hearings and generally
publicize the actiV1ties concerned with school district
reorganization. The committee was instructed to prepare
a revised plan if their first plan was rejected by the
state committee. If the revised plan was not accepted,
the state committee prepared a plan for reorganization
of school districts in the intermediate district.

The intermediate committees will be dissolved
upon completion of a plan, acceptance by the state com-
mittee, and a favorable vote of a majority Of electors

in the school district.

Voting_Methods

 

There were two methods of voting stipulated in
Act 289. The entire area encompassed by the intermediate
plan could vote as a unit on the question, or only the
proposed districts provided for in the plan could vote.
In either case, a majority of the electors who voted

were needed for approval. If method number one was used

163

and failed, method number two could then be used. How-
ever, no further election could be held after method

number two was used.

Philosophy of the Legislation

 

Responsibility for School District Reorganization

 

School districts are instruments Of the state
and Operate at the will of the state legislature;1 All
of the school districts in Michigan could be eliminated,
or the boundaries could be changed at any time. There-
fore, the state has the responsibility to provide ade-
quate legislation for school districts to form admini-
strative units that will be able to offer the best
possible education for all children. Although it is the
responsibility of all individuals and agencies to help
provide adequate educational programs and facilities, it
is primarily the responsibility of the state to do so.
Studies show that states which have reorganized their

school districts extensively received the primary stimu-

lus to do so from their State Department of Education.2

 

1Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963,
Article VIII, Section 1.

2National Education Association, School District
Organization, Op. cit., p. 2.

164

Michigan has always maintained a system of local
control of school districts in spite of the fact that the
state has the power to control them. However, Public Act
289 introduced mandatory procedures leading to school
district reorganization. As a result of the state ac-
cepting its reponsibility, more reorganization progress
has taken place since passage of Act 289 of 1964 than

ever before.

Cooperative Approach

 

As stated above, the legislature has the authority
to reorganize or eliminate all of the school districts
in Michigan and can act without the approval of the local
school districts or of the peopleaffected. However, such
autocratic action would do much to antagonize the citi-
zens involved, and many years would pass before positive
support of the schools could again be developed. Also,
mandatory legislation to force the reorganization of
school districts according to county lines or other poli-
tical boundaries was not used because Often such lines
were artificial and might have little relation to the
community centers. The Michigan Legislature and Depart-
ment of Education were aware of the latter facts. There-
fore, school district reorganization legislation was put

into effect that would be relatively mandatory but would

165

still leave the actual decision to the local communities
or at least to those representing the intermediate dis-
tricts. The state committee that approves or disapproves
reorganization plans is composed of individuals who are
independent of state government and of the legislature,
and the initiative for actually establishing a reorgani-
zation plan is left to each intermediate school district.
Once the legislation was passed, the role of the Depart-
ment of Education was to act in anadvisory capacity for
those intermediate districts that requested such aid.

The desirability of Public Act 289 is that it leads to
improved school district patterns, and still follows the

democratic process.

Characteristics Of the Legislation

 

*Public Act 289 of 1964 embodies many character-
istics that have been recommended by experts and that
are similar to those contained in the reorganization le—
gislation of several states which have successfully re-
organized their school districts.

*The approach under this legislation is state-
wide.

*The legislation provided for local committees
to make studies of redistricting needs and to develop

proposals for new districts.

166

*The legislation was democratic in approach as
it provided that local reorganization plans had to be
submitted to the voters for ratification.

*The legislation emphasized systematic planning
based on local conditions.

*The plan provided for a state committee to de-
velop policies and procedures.

*The plan has both permissive and mandatory
elements.

*Guidelines to determine minimum standards for

adequate school districts are employed.

Factors Stimulating Reorganization

 

There were numerous factors that helped promote
school district reorganization. Many local school super-
intendents and intermediate superintendents had sufficient
vision to see the advantages of consolidating school dis-
tricts into larger administrative units. Also, some of
the lay people on the intermediate reorganization com-
mittees were outstanding individuals who worked strenously
for effective school district reorganization.

Financial difficulties of small districts, in-
creased costs generally, and demands for more education

were all factors promoting reorganization of school districts.

167

Restrictions in the Legislation

 

The time element was a disturbing factor for some
of the intermediate school district committees as they
did not have enough time to properly gather necessary
information and adequately prepare plans. Consequently,
several districts submitted inadequate plans, and several
more asked for extensions Of time to prepare their plans.

The clause in the legislation limiting the final
number of school districts in the state to 500 was a weak-
ness as far as achieving satisfactory school reorganization
was concerned, because those Opposed to reorganization
often used this as an argument against reorganizing. How-
ever, the minimum number Of school districts was inserted
in the legislation as a compromise measure to help assure
passage Of the act. The incongruity of suggesting 500 as
a minimum number Of school districts in the state is
sharply illustrated by the excerpts from the 1962 State
Superintendent's Report which appear on pages 126-127 of
this study. In 1962 there were 553 twelve~grade dis—
tricts in the state of Michigan, and at that time the
State Superintedent explained that 130 of the 136 schools
having less than 200 secondary students could be elimi-
nated through reorganization without causing pupils to

have long distances to travel. If this basic recommendation

168

had been followed along with the elimination of non-
high school districts, the total number of school dis-
tricts would have been reduced to 423.

Another definite weakness in the act was the
clause that prevented the consolidating of two or more
districts of the third class or higher. This too was.
contained in the legislation as a compromise measure.

It has had an effect in preventing efficient reorganiza-
tion in some areas.

Also, due to difficulty in having the legisla-
tion approved, there was no requirement contained in it
concerning continuation Of extra voted Operating millage
of school districts. The attorney general's opinion on
this matter was that high school districts that consoli-
dated under Public Act 289 would have their extra voted
operating millage abolished. Again, this prevented the

consolidation of high school districts.

 

Problems Encountered in Reorganization
The greatest problem of attempting to reorganize
school districts in Michigan was the fear people had of
losing their local schools. For years some of the
schools in small communities had been locally controlled,

had been mainstays Of the community, and had given their

169

communities identity. Therefore, great resistance was
demonstrated in these areas to the requirements of Act
289.

In several cases school board members and school
administrators objected to reorganization of their dis-
tricts because they feared loss of their districts, and
because they feared loss of their jobs or at least a
loss of power.

Many of the intermediate superintendents were,
themselves, extremely conservative and did not wish to
see changes occur in their areas, and so Opposed reor-
ganization. Others did not directly Oppose it, but had
difficulty in taking the leadership Of their intermediate
committees in order to promote effective reorganization.
This, of course, parallels the description Of the reor-
ganization problem defined by Chisholm as a lack of
leadership.1

The fear of increased taxes caused difficulties
for those who wished to reorganize, as some people pre-
ferred weak school programs to increased taxes.

Reorganization programs were seriously retarded
by misunderstanding of citizens often caused by lack of

communication, or by intentioanl actions to mislead.

 

lChisholm, op. cit., p. 36.

 

170

There was even an organized committee in the state and

a paid lobbyist to Oppose the reorganization Of school
districts.1 This caused rumors, created distrust of the
State Department of Education and generally retarded
reorganization Of school districts. Also, litigation
was sometimes introduced that created problems involv-

ing reorganization.

Types of School Districts and Reorganization
Legislation Prior to the Passage of '
Public Act 289

 

At the time of passage of Public Act 289, Michigan

had five classifications of school districts.

Primary Districts
Originally the township board of each township
had authority to divide the township into such number of
school districts as was from time to time necessary, num-
ber the districts, and alter the boundaries as circum-
stances rendered proper; each district had to be composed
of contiguous territory and in as compact form as possible.
The board of education in a primary district is
composed of three members--president, secretary, and

treasurer.

 

1Appendix, p. 234.

171

Fourth Class School Distrigg

 

Originally any school district containing more
than seventy-five children between the ages of five and
twenty years and a total population of less than ten
thousand could, by a majority vote of the qualified
electors, organize as a graded school district.

Also, whenever a majority of the qualified
electors of any organized township voted in favor, the
township would be a single school district; this was
called the Township School District. Three or more
contiguous rural school districts having a total assessed
valuation of not less than seven hundred thousand dollars,
or a total area of eighteen sections, could be consoli-
dated into a Rural Agricultural School District. Agri-
culture, manual training, and home economics had to be
established as part of the regular course of study.

Each school district organized as a graded, town-
ship or rural agricultural school district at the time Of
taking effect of the School Code of July 1, 1955, became
a school district of the fourth class. Any school dis-
trict having a school census of more than seventy—five
and less than 2,400 children between the ages of five and

twenty may organize as a fourth class school district.

172

Third Glass School District

 

Any school district having a school census of more
than 2,400 and less than 30,000 children between the ages
Of five and twenty, may organize as a third class school

district.

Second Class School District

 

Any school district having a school census of
more than 30,000 and less than 120,000 children between
the ages Of five and twenty may reorganize as a second

class dchool district.

I
First Class School District

 

Each city which attains a school census of 120,000
or more children between the ages Of five and twenty years

of age may reorganize as a first class school district.

Special Act School Districts

 

A great many Special Act School Districts were
created by the legislature prior to 1907, Often at the
behest of mining and lumbering interests. Such districts
do not fit the regular Michigan school district classifi-
cations, but operate under special provisions. There
were at one time 160 special act districts in Michigan.

Most of these have been repealed.

173

Numbers of Districts

 

Following are the numbers of districts that

Operated in each classification in July, 1964:

Primary 570
Fourth Class 660
. Third Class 90
Second Class 2
First Class 1
Special Act 7
Total 1,330

Several districts had sufficient population to
be in a higher class than that in which they operated

but had not made provisions to be reclassified.

Reorggnization Legislation

 

All of the legislation in Michigan pertaining
to reorganization of school districts was permissive,
except for the mandatory elimination of closed school
districts, previous to the passage of Public Act 289.
Below are described the various types of reorganization
legislation in effect at the time of the approval of

Act 289.

Consolidation of Districts.--Any two or more school dis-

 

tricts, except districts Of the first and second class,

174

in which the total number Of children between the ages

of five and twenty years was seventy-five or more, could
consolidate to form a single school district if the major-
ity of all electors voting approved the consolidation and

the assumption of bonded indebtedness.

Annexation of One District to Another.-—Any School dis-

 

trict was annexed to another school district whenever

the board of the annexing district determined so by re-
solution and a majority of the qualified school electors
of the district becoming annexed, voting on the question,

approved the annexation.

Transfer of Territory Between Districts.--The county

 

board of education could, in its discretion, detach
territory from one district and attach it to another when
requested to do so by resolution of the board of any dis-
trict whose boundaries would be changed by such action,
or when petitioned by not less than two-thirds of the

resident owners of the land to be transferred.

Miscellaneous Reorganization Legislation.--There were also

 

in effect certain methods of reorganizing school districts

through dissolution of districts and division Of districts.

175

Status of School Districts

 

Public Act 289 was approved by the legislature
March 31, 1964 and became effective August 28, 1964. How-
ever, due to provisions of the legislation, the act did
not have a direct effect on school districts until some
months later. Therefore, the status of school districts
as of July 1, 1964 has been compared to the status of
school districts as of July 1, 1966 for the purpose of
this study.

Since the survey unit under Public Act 289 is
the intermediate district, data have been assembled on
this basis as well as on the state as a whole.

This study did not attempt to analyze all of the
implications Of Act 289 nor to reach conclusions based
on the total effect of the act, since at the very time the
study was being done reorganization committees were making
plans, reorganization elections were being held, and much
action was pending.

Michigan had 545 school districts classified as
K-12 on July 1, 1964. In size these districts ranged
from Detroit with 294,060 pupils to St. James with fifty-
nine pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve. From
the standpoint of valuation per child, the range was

from $65,352 for Essexville to $984.00 for Gwinn.

176

Several factors may be considered in defining an
adequate school district. This analysis considers the
three most significant ones, the K-12 district as the
basic administrative unit, enrollment and financial abil-
ity. The enrollment considered by the State Department
of Education to be adequate in Michigan is 2,000 pupils
in grades kindergarten through the twelfth.1 Various tax
studies indicate that reasonable financial ability lies
somewhere between the median and the mean of a series.

In Michigan, this figure reported by the Department of
Education in 1965 was slightly over $12,000 per membership
pupil.2

As of July 1, 1964, Michigan had 310 high school
districts in the state that had enrollments below 2,000,
and 339 K-lZ districts that had less than $12,000 per
resident membership pupil. There were 212 districts that
fell below both the minimum enrollment and financial stan-
dards. Added to this were 893 non-high school districts.
Therefore, the state had a total of 1,438 school districts,

1,330 of which were considered inadequate in one way or

another.

 

1Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Report
of the Administrative Services Division, 1965.

2Ibid.

 

177

Results of the Legislation

 

Analysis of Data

 

The data collected pertaining to the results of
Public Act 289 have been compiled into four tables and
incorporated into this study. The data are reported ac—
cording to the disposition of reorganization proposals,
method Of voting and success of elections. A general
analysis of the data with interpretative statements and

Observations are reported in the following paragraphs.

Intermediate Plans

 

The State Of Michigan has sixty intermediate school
districts. As of July 1, 1966 the State Committee on
School District Reorganization had received plans from
reorganization committees in fifty-eight of the inter-
mediate school districts. Fifty-three of the reorganiza-
tion plans submitted by intermediate committees were
accepted by the State Reorganization Committee, although
several of them had to be temporarily returned for slight
revisions or more information.

Table 4-a reveals the disposition of the inter-
mediate plans that have not been approved by the State
Reorganization Committee. Two intermediate districts,

Menominee and Cass, had not submitted plans as of

JHy 1, 1966.
senting a pla:
asslntermed
in voting on
tothe State
same neither
mediate comm
and so it was

Table
Plans front in
State Commit
Ottawa, and
tees of thes
revise and I
If the Plans
or if the 11'
Plans, the
organizatio
the interme

As
“Coma and
plans for (

Proved as

 

178

July 1, 1966. Menominee was merely delinquent in pre-
senting a plan to the State Committee. However, the
Cass Intermediate Reorganization Committee split evenly
in voting on their proposals and thus submitted two plans
to the State Committee. The Attorney General ruled that
since neither plan was approved by a majority of inter-
mediate committee members, neither plan could be accepted,
and so it was considered that no plan had been submitted.
Table 4-a further reveals that three reorganization
plans from intermediate districts were rejected by the
State Committee. These were Cheboygan-Otsego—Presque Isle,
Ottawa, and Traverse Bay Area. The reorganization commit-
tees Of these intermediate districts are required to
revise and re-submit their plans to the State Committee.
If the plans are again rejected by the State Committee,
or if the intermediate committees refuse to re-submit their
plans, the State Committee will prepare plans for the re-
organization Of their school districts. The electors in
the intermediate districts will still vote on the proposals.
As shown in Table 4-a, the Alpena-Montmorency-
Alcona and the Sanilac Intermediate Districts submitted
plans for consideration but had not had their plans ap-

proved as Of July 1, 1966.

Status Quo

Seven
high school d
Examination 0
are primarily
politan areas
the proposals

consequently e

 

§tatus 0f Inte
Have Not Had I

Plan Not Subm

Plan Rej eCted

"moral of s.

179

Status Quo

 

Seven intermediate school districts had no non—
high school districts and were generally well-organized.
Examination of Table 4-b shows that these seven districts
are primarily concentrated in the dense population, metro-
politan areas of the state. The State Committee approved
the proposals submitted by the intermediate committees,
consequently elections were not required and were not

held in any of the districts.

TABLE 4-a

 

Public Act 289 — Reorganization
Status of Intermediate School Districts in Michigan That
Have Not Had Reorganization Plans Approved, July 1, 1966
Plan Not Submitted . . . . . . . . . . Cass
Menominee

Plan Rejected by State Committee . . . Cheboygan-Otsego-
Presque Lake

Ottawa

Traverse Bay Area
(Grand Traverse,
Benzie, Kalkaska,
Antrim)

Approval of State Committee Pending. . Alpena-Montmorency-
- Alcona

Sanilac

hN.0rganized
So Election Re
Clin
Gene
Glad

Iosc

Tables
aTganization e
under PTOVisir
Tables 4“: an.

partially suc

POSals were d

selected Merl]

me 4‘C rev

held .

finding . Tat

gethod #1 ele

180

TABLE 4-b
Public Act 289 - Reorganization
Well Organized Intermediate School Districts in Michigan.

No Election Required Under Provisions of Public Act 289.
July 1, 1966

Clinton Kalamazoo
Genesee Livingston
Gladwin Macomb
Iosco

Election Results

 

Tables 4-c and 4-d reveal that twenty-eight re-
organization elections were held in intermediate districts
under provisions of Public Act 289 prior to July 1, 1966.
Tables 4-c and 4-d indicate that the results of Public
Act 289 elections have not been highly successful, as
only twelve elections were completely successful, and six
partially successful, while ten Of the reorganization prO-
posals were disapproved by electors.

Method #1—-Twenty-two intermediate school districts

 

selected Method #1 for their reorganization election.

Table 4-c reveals that fifteen of these elections were

held prior to July 1, 1966, and seven Method #1 elections are
pending. Table 4—c reveals that a high percentage of

Method #1 elections were unsuccessful, only five of the

fifteen pTOPO
were approved
However, the
duced since i
Act 289, each
under Method
and hold me
The ten inte
Method #1 el

again under

Mill]
selected Met
tion. Table
Method #2, E
Soccessfm :
*2 election
Method #2 e

lmsuccessfu

181

fifteen proposals held under provisions of Method #1

were approved by electors, while ten were disapproved.
However, the importance of this factor is somewhat re-
duced since in accordance with the requirements of Public
Act 289, each district that held an unsuccessful election
'under Method #1 must submit a revised reorganization plan
and hold another election under provisions of Method #2.
‘The ten intermediate districts that held unsuccessful
ldethod #1 elections must submit revised plans and vote

again under Method #2 (see Table 4-c).

Method #2--Twenty-four intermediate districts

 

sealected Method #2 for their first reorganization elec-
txion. Table 4-d reveals a high degree of success with
Method #2, as seven of the elections were completely
SLu2cessfu1 and six were partially successful. NO Method
#2 relection was completely unsuccessful. Twenty-one
Method #2 elections are pending, eleven of them in in-
terunediate districts that will be voting for the first
tiJne, and ten as reported earlier, that previously held
luusuccessful elections under provisions of Method #1

(See Tables 4-c and 4-d).

The reference to a partially successful election
reqtdres further explanation. Under Method #1, the en-

tire area encompassed by the intermediate district votes

IEC: OP \— — ... --

 

 

 

My pozuoz - m:Owuoo~m HBMmmoouzm

Gama .H x~35 .NCHficoa MO OOHOHQEOU mCOMuUOHm H .02 UOSHOZ fiufik muUNhumwQ OHQMDQEHQNEH EnMWQUME
nu . .

 

 

 

20m.USNd—nflflwholuz I mmN UU< UHHQJQ

xiv 9‘ ~Iv...<.-.

182

 

HomH Hmauu HuoHHsm
mAmH mHH OAH HA on> HammNOHm HNmH chaoHou oo-mHto ecmHeHz
Nam Hm“ Hum.
A4 Ho m AoHHHH
AH em AoHHm> Anyone
ow mNH A Hanna;
Aw omH aHamczoA mega» Hoe :HzeHmm 00-4Hrm «HaH
mmom a mm Hoamgv OH meHaH< exam «Heaam
mwmm HbH mmw
mm oA .Hum v moacomno>
mm cm H moccomno>
mH mmH .HHH m :muomeo
mm Am o HHszH mAHN HHmon
mmmH huh. mhh
AH MN .HHH N Housmam
AN mA m ecmeeaoo
N4 HA .HHH H Housmam
CA as .HHH o eemHoesou
ON an A :omHmz
mm em .Hem m :omHmz ome mmeHHmm Hmeou
AmNH omH wOH .HHH m oeoeAA HNHH AHHU name
mNmN AH mm Huemav OH oaHmH< HHmN mHHHm mzoeox
OOHm mm AHH H eemHHesou Aeom eeomxuom oo-m~-m heme
:oflu mflnm msmcou mcfipmomam aflcm muofipumfln open uoflpumfin
-mwficmwhoom -HonEoz Hoozom -mfia muuauumfla -HonEoz Hoonom NH-x :oAuuon oumfiwoe
Hmoe< aHamhon Hoogum -HmH: Hooeum gmH:-coz NH-H -HmueH

-Eoz NH-x :mHm-:oz -eoz

 

HA vogue: . mewuoon HOMmmooosm

oomH .H AHse .meHeaoa Ho eoHoHdsoo meoHHoon H .02 vogue: gum: mHuHHHmHa onHeQEMoueH :mmHHUHz

 

coHHmNHcmmHoom - mam Hu< uHHnsm

U .. v mam/wk.

.3.

.N. .3...

 

N

.¢.¢I--

In:

a...

Md.

.6

.hV‘

\

it.

\

~ .\§-.\

141,411.]!

 

.ll.‘ v.1"

183

 

NeNH mpH HAN
vomoao we H :3ouuoum3
o om HNomV
A meHonemHeaH
mm mN A Haoaoem
AN ca HNmAv c HeoEQHH
womoao mm m uaoaopm
mH as ANAHV m :oHAma
emmoHo ON HNANV a eooAmn
om om N eooAma mNHH QHHHssmz
awe Ami moi
NN 40 N mHneaHou
0 cm H wHHssHou Ace aHHHseoHep
omAH NH ow H «Honp< NAAH zoomeHHHHz oo-m-m «HOUmsA
NmOH ANN omN praav moHaH me com eemgucmHm
mam find whofiwm
maaonwpcoz
AAAH mm mA Haemav mmHmH xam mHAH 20H>ome
oosH mmu mbH
OH HN o HoEoon
womoHo w v HoEOon
ON as HHHNHV m HHaaemsm
mN Am H HmHmAHu mosH HmHmAHu
-zufiu comhmu
mHHH hm: men
Nm an a eomHoHa
AN we H nomHde OOOH Aucsou-HHA
owAH mm NHH
OH AH m HHoenmsm we open
mH mm m mHHHmm eHmuucoz
ONON NN No .HHH A HmHmAHu NHAH Hmepemu oo-eH-m eHm0peoz
:owu afinm msmcou mcwumommm mwgm manHumfin oumo powhumflm
-muwcwmhoom -honEoz Hoonom -mfia muoHHpmflQ -uonEoz Hoonom NH-M cowuoofim oumwwos
Houm< mfinmuoa Hooaom am“: Hoogom saw:-:oz NH-M. -HOunH
-20: NH-H :mHz-eoz -aoz

 

Aposcwucouv Cofiumuflcmwhoom . mwm HU< UMHQSQ .qu mqm<h

 

CrOMrOaU av? P$a.m\ u Crfu>~lH

 

eomoHo mH ANmmc e :oOxm: QNA :onmcwx
COWU adfiw meCOU wCAHQOQQfi Qfltm muUwhumHQ Oqu HUHHHWHQ
«MNACS hOOZ IHOSEOZ HOOSUm 1mm: MHUMLHWMQ IROQEQZ HOOAU .r . p. H
hvuu< Gmfimhbfi HOOZUT :MH: H00£Um £Mw::COZ Mark A W NH ¥ EOquOHE OumHUDE
ISHUZ V- 1V— :xm_—I:fivz ICCZ

ILUHCN

n! I l \ .\.§I\'.§

184

 

omAH mph
wouuo mcmuu mH m «moHcooHo
mma NmN mHnmczoe cooHMHo>m HooH xufiu mmmu
wmmH mhl whl
mN mm m Hammm>
HH om v «Hoomze NNmH Hmmmm>
NmHN all. Huh.
womoHo o mwoav
A meonamHecH
m «H HNmNV o peoEmHm NNHN oemu
OVA bhl MNH
ON we H eopmmcHH
eomoHo ow HNomv m :oHAma
eomoHu mH Hammv N :ouAmo ONA eoummeHx
:oAu mfinm msmcou mcHumonmm mfinm muufiuumfin mama wownumfin
-mNficmmpoom -Honsoz Hoonom -mHQ muofluumwn -HonEoz Hoogom NH-¥ :oAHOOHm oumfiume
Houm< aficmuon Hoonum am“: Hoogom sm«m-coz Nfinx -hmunH
-Eoz NH-H HNH:-:oz -coz

 

NewscHoeoov :oHumNHemwpoom - mmm uu< OHHesm .o-v mHm<A

185

Unsuccessful Elections — Method NO. 1

 

 

 

Election
Intermediate District Date
Allegan 5-9-66
Berrien 5-16-66
Ionia 6-13-66
Jackson H 5-17-66
Lapeer 4-4-66
Manistee 5-16-66
Mecosta-Osceola 6-13-66
Oceana 5-16-66
St. Joseph 5-16-66
Van Buren 5-9-66

Elections Pending- Method No. 1

 

Eaton 9-12-66
Hillsdale 7-20-66
Muskegon 8-2-66
Oakland 10-5-66
St. Clair

Shiawassee 9-15-66

Wayne

,.

o-

.I

040‘.

L44

186

as a unit on the question. If a majority of the qualified
electors present and voting approve the plan, it becomes
adOpted and effective throughout the intermediate district.
However, under Method #2 the proposed districts provided
for in the approved plan vote by proposed districts on the
question. If a majority of the qualified electors present
and voting in a proposed district approve the plan for that
proposed district, it becomes adopted and effective through—
out the proposed district. Therefore, under the provisions
of Method #2, it is possible for an election to be success-
ful in one or more proposed school districts within an in-
termediate school district, but also unsuccessful in one or
more proposed school districts within the same intermediate
district. Whether the election results are successful or
unsuccessful, those intermediate districts that held elec-
tions under Method #2, whether or not an election was held
first under Method #1, have completed the requirements of
Public Act 289 of 1964.

Examination of the data in Table 4-d will show a
distinct success pattern in Method #2 elections. No elec-
tion under Method #2 was completely unsuccessful, and a
high percentage were completely successful. This has de-
finite implications for reorganization legislation and would

be worthy of consideration when proposing such legislation.

 

 

 

CCOF r 3....r It... I r

 

 

 

:ofiumNAcmmhoom r mmm uu< UanzM

my: a. m4m~<.~.

 

 

HHmH MAM Abe
emH mNN Nm eusoaAmA
omH emN ow HusoeAmA
Ac NHH m HonoEAmA
Ho HmH m EpsosAmA
om mm 4 HonoEAmA
on mm N HonoEAmA meH cam eueHm oo-mH-o zmnHmmm
HNNN AAM Hum
mHH mAH m HHeasm
mm moa N ouuoscumz ouom
HNN can a :HHEmm
mm mmH N :HHsm: emAN eoumcHesH
meeH AMA mwm
mHN Hon .Hua N cooko>Hm
0H mN .Hem m Hemuu NHNH mHHHsuuoum
cmm eomoHu on N emeHHonm omm “cameo oo-NN-e comm:
mNoH HN as o eHoHHHmoH: «NOH oHHH>meao oo-ON-o eanucH
m HNAH mN mm .HE H 225 3: 9:30 8-24 838
NAom on NN .Hea N eHaHHo meow HouazeHou .
NoHH mH NN N oHHoz AvoH someoam oe-¢-s Huemem
NNNN AN on
HN Nm .Hem oH mmcHummm
oN mm m oeoeHuHmm Hsmm mmeHumm: oo-mH-o Aeemm
:oHu mflnm msmcou mcflumommm aficm mgofiuumwa mama uuwuumfio
-mNfiameoom -HonEoz Hoonom -mfia muowpumwm -HonEoz Hooaom NH-M cofiuooam oumfiwoe
Houm< aHanoH Hooeum HmHz Hoogum anm-:oz NH-x -NoHeH
-502 NH-H anz-=oz -coz
mt vogue: - mcofiuoon HOMmmooosw

oomH .H Ast .mnHeeaa go eonHHEOO meoHHuon N .02 eoeHoz HHHz muoHHHmHa

 

cue mqm<H

:oHHmNHemeomm - mNN Hu< uHHnnm

oumfionpoucH sewason

mafiaHmoncm (FT—*0 u+tof“‘u.c tin“: u‘lhll‘l

:oHu chm mzmcou 2
-muficmmhoom nhonEoZ Hooaom umAQ mwuwhumwn «hmnEQE ~OO£Um Nmuk EOMHUOHM mumema
soum< oHcmuon Hoonom :mH: Hoonum :MA:-:02 NN-M -Hmunm
-Eoz Naux :mflzncoz -coz

 

mOOSCMOCOUy COMumNMGOMhoom u mmN uu< UNHODQ .Orv MQM<H

Hwo.v mm mm m hoflhomzm «woe cam onsz

 

AOH.NH Am: “NH
AN ON .HHO N eoHHogsm
ON ON .HHO H HOHHOOON
OH HN .Hem N Honh< OO< OOH.NH NOOH< OOO OO-NH-O sacopammz
OONH ONMH NHnH
OHO HOHH HNH
n. NOOOHOO NOHOHON
m NO OO H; N H35 5%
ON ONH HO NOOOO :OOHOO
ANH ONN HH NOEOOO NHOO
NON NON HH OOEOOAO :OHOHH AOHHO> cmzm
AHO.NN Am» MMHH
NNH HNN O OHHH>OOOH
NNH OON A OHHH>OUON
OOO NOO OmHsmzHHN NOH.NN 3OOHOON
OAON E E
OH OO .HNO A OONH> Oemsm
OOH NON N OHNH> Ocosm NHON OHNH> Ocean
cofiu mfinm mamcou mnwumogam mflnm muufiuumfin mama powhumwn
-muwcmmpoom -honEOz Hooaom -mwa muumhumwa uponEoz Hoogom NH-M :OOHOOHm oumfiwoe
HOHOO OHONHOH Hoonum OOH: Hoogum OOH:-coz NH-N -HOHOH

-amz NH-N :mHm-eoz -eoz

 

HemseHueooO :oHOONHemeomm - OON Hu< uHHnsm .e-O mHm<O

”-

:OHO stm msmcou McNamoaam awcm mNuHANmAQ mum: NewuomwO

 

uflNmCSMhOOx rhODEOZ HOO£Um Imflfl muUMHHWMQ nhOQEOZ HOO£UW NHI¥ EONHUONW OQSHUUE
h0.»-.< SHSOHLQD Hoop—UT. SEMI HOOCUW CNMIICOZ Nfirv~ aLQHCN
n——...J_Z Nu iv— £N.:..C.JZ ICOZ
-wul.-.4.....r.,- _.-,.l..... . $2. -I'JLHO . 1...: . 2.....itrtnv-..»12?. K437: . ... ... .2...

Oom MMH MbM

189

 

 

AN OOH OOOHOH Oeoaesun
OO OOH OHemesoO HOOOO HNN HOOHOO
ANOH th bbe
OO OOH OAHOOOOO HHOOHOO
NAH NOO OHemeon OOOHHOOO
om OOH QHHOOSOH ommuuom
NA OOH OHnmezoe OHOHOOHOH
OO OOH OHameon OOOOOHOO
womoHo mm Hocow Aan xupoazoz
OHAN OO NO OHOH HOOHO AOON OHOOOOO
UMQH UN
ONAO mmA OAHH H ”was”
mm MOH OH .02 Hmuwmn OMSGQQH£UV
ONN OON OHnmazoO ouaem OHHOz .
AOO HOO OHgmczoe OOO AOON .OHO HHOOO OO-ON-O OHOOOHOOO
Henna :Hoummm
Heuomzmuu .mwoomo
. m om
OOOH AHHO whom- .OoemowmomO
OAOH ON OA O concou.o HUOOHO ONO:
OONH OON NNN OHHOOOHO OOOH OOHHAOHO OO-ON-O Hoou
OOON NAH MMN
OO OO .HHO A OEHOO
NN HO .HHO O Ououeou
ON HO N OOOHOOHO
NN AN .HHO N OOOHHOOO
ON OO O OOHOHO
OH OO .HHO N :oHOH< NOAN :oHOH< OO-ON-O OOOOHOO
:OHp mHnm mamcou Mchmoaum mHnm muOHHumHo oumn HOHHHOHQ
-ONHOOMHOOm -HonEoz Hoocom -OHQ OOOHHHOHQ -Honsoz Hoonom NH-x coHuoon oumeoE
HOHO< OHOOHOO Hoogum OOH: HooHuO OOH:-Ooz NH-x -HOHOH
-5»: NH-N OmHm-Ooz .=02
N .02 vogue: - :oHuoon Hsmmmooosm zHHmHuhmm

 

OH em m HOHOOSR MVMH OOOHHCOHUOHQ ©©:N-© wowumhm
COHH QHnm mSmCOU NCHHOOQQO Qflzm muUwhumNQ OHMQ HUHKuWHQ
rmuwfimmhoom nhODEOZ HOOSUW umwQ mUUwhumMQ rhOQEOZ HOO£UW NHI¥ COHHUOHH OKNNEOE
houe< OHnmAOL Hoosuw zmH: Hoozum :mHIICOZ NHIM rheuzw
IEOZ Ndlx :MOIuCOZ [£02
A u 1 out I o as q a - finlv All v fi‘luln.d.s.l~| iv A v -N .1 ”his I F~Mlvlfi “U: Mildrwlvi.‘ .lelh V hi-IH..MJH.Iww.oU ..J.”v|~.mlJ. MA‘ My WNW... .mr film. 5.... N

 

 

 

 

 

NOOH E E
ON AA N HOOOO
ON OO N OOOHO
OONOHO OO .HHO O OOOHHN<
ON OO O OOOHOO<
ON ON N OOOHOO<
OH OO N OOOHHO<
OOOOHO AN .HHO H OOOHHOO
AN AOH O OOOHO
OH NO O HOOOO ANNH HOOHO
OAOH OO AOH OOHOHO AOO OOAmzmz OO-O-O OOAOOOz
NHON OMB Ohm
n. AN OA O Omuoxm
m“ OO OOH O OOHOxm
OH NO N HOHOxm
NO OA OH HO< NANN HHOOOH<
NONN HO AOH N :HHHOO HONN OOOHOOOOO
ONOH EN EN.
OOH HNO OOOHOO .
OOON NONN HOHOOO OOOO OOOOoz OO-NH-O OOHOoz
ONOH POI E
AN AN H HOHHOO
OO AO N OOOOOO
OH ON N OOHOOOO NONH OOOHOOOHOOHO OO-N-O OOHHOHO
:oHu mHnm msmcou mcHumommm mHnm muoHHumHa oumn uuHhumHa
-mNHOOMHOOm -HonEoz Hoonom -mHQ muoHHumHQ -HonEoz Hoonow NH-M :oHuuon oumeoE
OOHOO OHOOHOO HOOOOO OOH: HOOOOO OOH:-Ooz NH-O -OOHOH
-st NH-O OOHz-Ooz -Ooz

 

HOOOOHHOOOV m .02 vogue: - :oHuoon HawOmooosthHHmHuHmm

Inte

 

Bay:
Char
COpp

Delt
Dick
Goge
Hurc
Isak
Lena
Marc
Wexi

M

A11.
Ber
IOn
Jac
Lap
Man
eC
Ce

va;1

191

Elections Pending - Method NO. 2

 

NO Previous Election Held

 

 

 

Election
Intermediate District Date
Bay-Arenac 8-15-66
Charlevoix-Emmet 10-10-66
Copper Country

(Houghton, Baraga,

Keweenaw) -
Delta-Schoolcraft 7-25-66
Dickinson-Iron 9-26-66
Gogebic-Ontonagon 9-26-66
Huron 10-3-66
Isabella 8-12-66
Lenawee 9-27-66
Marquette-Alger 9-12-66
Wexford-Missaukee 9-12-66

Elections Pending - Method NO. 2

 

Unsuccessful Election Previously Held Under Method 1

Allegan 10-3-66
Berrien 10-3-66
Ionia 12-12-66
Jackson -
Lapeer 9-26-66
Manistee 11-10-66
Mecosta-Osceola -
Oceana -
St. Joseph 10-3-66

Van Buren -

RGSL
vealed in Ta
:hildren frc
taining grac
of one new 1

total membe‘

192

Results of the elections under Public Act 289, re-
vealed in Tables 4-c and 4-d, are the transfer of 14,000
children from non—high school districts to districts main-
taining grades kindergarten through twelve, the formation
of one new high school district, and an increase in the

total membership of forty-six high school districts.

Status Of Intermediate School Districts

Table 5

A brief explanation of the status of each intermediate
district as a result of Public Act 289 is given in Table 5.
An examination Of Table 5 will reveal that the sharp reduction
in the number of school districts since July 1, 1964 resulted
primarily from the direct effects of Public Act 289. Further-
more, it will reveal that many Of Michigan's school district
reorganization problems would have been solved if all elec-
tions held under the provisions of Public Act 289 had been
successful.

The numerical columns in Table 5 have not been totaled.
Columns two and three indicate the number of districts that
existed in each intermediate district previous to the district's
Public Act 289 election. The dates of the elections vary which
(nauses the totals Of columns two and three to be invalid. Col-
lnnns four, seven and eight have not been totaled because of

theatentative status of many of the intermediate school districts.

An ex
that voted un

in passing th

 

 

have complete
high school d

districts.

Table
successful e]
iIlStance in \
“as Presente.
County, a ne
districts th
Roy; Vote und
reorganizati
modified, at

ACt 289.

Tab
that would
Passed succ
met the thr

pTOgram ’ a c

\

As

tions held
In View Of
Elections

193

An examination of Table 5 will show six districts
that voted under Method #2 were only partially successful
in passing their reorganization proposals. These districts
have completed the requirements of Public Act 289, but non-
high school districts still exist within all six intermediate
districts.

Table 5 shows several intermediate districts had un-
successful elections under Method #1, and shows that every
instance in which a highly ambitious organization proposal
was presented, such as a single school district within a
county, a negative vote was the result. These intermediate
districts that rejected the proposals under Method #1 must
now vote under Method #2. However, it is expected that their
reorganization proposals under Method #2 will be greatly
modified, and merely meet with minimum requirements of Public
Act 289.

Table 5 indicates that the total number of districts
that would have existed if all reorganization proposals had
passed successfully would have been more than the 104 that
met the three criteria of enrollment valuation, and K-12
program, as determined by the State Reorganization Committee.

As shown by Table 5 only twelve of twenty-eight elec-
tions held under Public Act 289 were completely successful.
3h1 view of the results of the school district reorganization

Elections that have been held to this time, it is anticipated

that many of
This leads to
rill be neede

districts.

It is
trict reorgac
zany years it
occurred in ]
forced the e]
was no reduc1
until the 19!
have an effer
decrease bec;
IEduction in
adirect res]
Provisions
firect reSU1‘

.
at

tempt to

194

that many of the pending elections will be unsuccessful.
This leads to the conclusion that new mandatory legislation
will be needed tO adequately reorganize Michigan's school

districts.

Significance of Act 289

 

It is apparent from the findings that school dis-
trict reorganization proceeded at a rather slow pace for
many years in Michigan. An exception to this slow pace
occurred in 1957 due to the mandatory legislation which
forced the elimination of closed school districts. There
was no reduction of school districts comparable to 1957
until the 1964 year, at which time Public Act 289 began to
have an effect. Due to this legislation the percentage of
decrease became even greater in 1965 and 1966. Much of the
reduction in schoOl districts during 1964, 1965 and 1966 was
a direct result of reorganization elections held under the
provisions of Public Act 289. However, the act also had in-
direct results since it stimulated many school districts to
attempt to solve their reorganization problems through
traditional annexation and consolidation procedures rather
than to wait for the effects of Public Act 289.

For example, the St. Johns School District in Ingham
Intermediate District annexed twenty-five primary districts

that had for many years resisted all attempts toward

 

 

rCCZI

 

mcoHHuon OON
uo< OHHosd OOOHO. OHOHHHOHO Hoocom mo 62 H6O. OHHOOO OH msow>ONnHmOONHHmNQ
occmfi AH sAHSHJ OH mwN UU< UHHDSQ mo WCOflmfikaFHW (Neva: WQHHflkflWUUGa COWHmNflcmmeflo

WCONHUOHN mmN
HOOHNUM. W0 .02
0% M0 NKQEESW

W .HMJQHVHH

195

 

OOHOOOO OO-ON-A N O OH OH OOOH
-ummHuHooaom-muHoa
O N OO-ON-O HOHHOOO N O O seasoumom-3OeOOo
-mOoumo-OHomzmhu
O O OOHHSGOH OOHHOOHO 02 O O :OHOHHU
N O OO-mH-O mo» N m m H OHmHu
OOHuHEEoo Opmum kn OOHOOOOH anm OH A omompo
-OHmH Oscmmum-cmmxononu
OOHOOOO OO-OH-OH N O NH O Ooeem-xHo>OHHOHO
OOHHHEEOU
OOOHOoEHouaH On OOHOHEOOO Ho: :mHm O NH mmmu
HH OH OO-mN-O HmHuHmm N OH HH NN asogHmo
O O O0-0-0 mo» N m m N nocmum
OH OH O0-0H-O 02 H OH OH OH OOHHHom
OOHOOOO O0-0H-O N A A N OOOOO<-AOO
N O OO-NH-O Om» N N N AH AHOOO
OOHOOOO OOHHHEEOU oumum mo HO>OHQQ< m O N OOOOHoEucoz
. mnouH<-m:OQH<
O OO O0-0-m oz H O O om cmonH<
OOHOOOHQ HOHHHOHQ mama uHsmom HOHHHOHQ OOHHOOHQ uoHupmHn uoHHumHQ
Hoonom Hoonom Ocm Hoonom Hoogom Hoonom oumHOOeHOucH
OOH: OOHO OOOOOz OOHO OOH: OOHO
-coz OomomOHm -coz

 

OOOHOOOHO OON
Hu< OHHOOO OOHOO OOOHOOOHO HOOOOO OO .02

OOOHOOOHO OON

uo< OHHOOO Op msoH>OHmmuoHHpmHQ Hoogom mo .02

 

.OOOH .H OHOO Op OON uo< OHHOOO mo mconH>OHm HOOOD mOHuH>Huo< :oHpmNHcmmnoom mo Numeesm

m mHm<H

wOSHOE

 

x: O:
womOQOHm

 

I COOK

 

 

 

 

WMDQNHEQD

NO. ONOOA

196

 

H O O0-0H-m mm» H H H O OHOH
OH O OO-mN-m mm» H AH OH OH puma
O O OOMHOOOH cOHpooHO oz O O O oonEmme
OH O O0-0H-O 02 H H OH O OOOHOOO
OOHOOOO OO-N-O N O O N OHHOOOOH
OOHHOOOH :oHuooHo oz O O oomoH
O OO O0-0H-O 02 H m O OO choH
NH O OO-ON-O NO» N NH NH H OOOOOH
OOHOOOO OO-N-OH N OH OH ON OOOOO
OOHOOOO N O O zucoozox
-mmmumm-:ou:mso:
O O O0-0N-N 02 H H O O onOmHHH:
O O OO-N-O HOHHOOO N O O HH OOHOOHO
OOHHHE
-Eoo oumpm On OOHOOOOH :mHm N O OH OH OHOOHHOM-OHN:om
-EHuuc<-omuo>mhe Omaha
OOHOOOO OO-ON-O N OH NH N OOOOOOOOO-OHOOOOO
N O OOHHOUOH :oHuooHo 02 N O OHSOOHO
HN O OOHHOGOH OOHHOOHO oz HN O monocoo
OOHOOOO OO-NH-O H A A ON :oumm
OH OH OO-ON-O HOHOOOO N OH OH OH OHOOOHOOO OOOOO OOOHNOO
OOHOOOO N O O H OOOH-OOOOHHOHO
HOHOHOHO OOHOHOHO OOOO OHOOOO OOHOOOHO HUHHONHO OOHOHOHO HOHOHOHO
Hoogom Hoonom Ocm Hoonom Hoogom Hoonom oumHOoeHoucH
OOH: OOH: Ooguoz OOHO OOHO OOHO
-coz ,momomOHOl -:oZl

 

 

OOOOHOOOO .O OHOOH

 

 

 

 

HOHOHOHO

OONOOmHQ

OONHNOHQ

HUHHHmHQ UUw%umMQ 0962 HHJWOZ HUflhumNQ
HOOSUW HOOSUW USN HOOSUW HOOCUW HOOSUW QHMH OEMQ Q
LON: LOO: Oonuoz :MO: new: HRH: .n O N
1:02 fiOmOQOth. 1202

 

 

 

 

Nu .ru 3 : ,.~ U, -0nv

\

.AH

.9 Nn\ ugh

197

 

 

 

OOHOOOO H A A HH HHOHO .HO
NH O OO-NH-O NOO N NH NH OH 3OOHOOO
OOHHHEEOU Oumum On Oouommou amHm A AH mzmuuo
O OH OO-OH-O 02 H H O OH OOOOOO
OOHOOOO OO-O-OH Om» H ON ON N OOOHOOO
O OH OO-O-O HOHHOOO N O O ON OOAmzmz
OOHOOOO OO-N-O H H NH O OOOOHOOZ
A O OO-OH-O mm» H A A O eHOuueoz
. mo»
O O HOHHOOO N O O HH ochcoz
O O OO-NH-O mm» H O O H OOOHOHz
ooupHEEou OumHOOsHOHOH On OouuHEnsm Hos OOHO m N OOOHEanz
O HH OO-NH-O 02 H A O HH OHOOOOO-OHOOOO2
O O O0-0N-O Om» N O O O OONO:
OOHOOOO OO-NH-O N O HH NH OOOH<-OHHOOOOO2
O N OO-OH-O oz H H O N OOHOHOOE
HN O OOMHOGOH :oHuooHo oz HN HN O nEoomz
O O OOHHOOOH :oHpooHo oz m O O .coummcH>HH
OOHOOOO OO-AN-O N O OH O OO3OOOH
O O OO-O-O oz H O O O OOOOOH
OOHOOOHO HOHOOOHO OHOO HHOOOO OOHHHOHO OOHOOOHO OUHOHOHO OOHOHOHO
Hoonom Hoogom Ocm Hoonum Hoonuw Hoonom oumHOoEuoucH
OOH: OOHO OOOHOz OOH: OOHO OOHO
-coz Oomoaopm -coz
OOOOHOOOO .O OHOOO

+0\u.|!|‘l
cc

Hoonom
OOH:

Hoonum
OOH:
:floz

 

 

 

 

fiozuoz

.cmwz,
UOOOQOHQ

OOH:

£O .AI
-202

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UOBCOHCOU

.m ONOOO

198

 

OOHOOOO N O O OH moxsmmmHz-Onomez
OOHOOOO H ON ON O OOOOO
OH O OO-mH-O mo» N OH OH O Zucounmmz
HH O O0-0-0 02 H HH HH O cousm :m>
OH O O0-0-m mm» H OH OH OH mHoomze
OOHOOOO OO-OH-O H A O N OOOOO3OHOO
OOHOOOO OOOHHEEOU oumum mo Hm>oumm< A OO OOHHcmm
O O O0-0H-O 02 H O O O OOOOOO .OO
OOHHHOHQ HOHHHOHQ oumo OHOOOO HOHOHOHQ OOHHOOHQ HOHHHOHQ OOHOHOHQ
Hoonom Hoonom Ocm Hoonom Hoonom Hoonom oumHOOeHoch
OOH: OOH: Ooepoz OOH: OOH: OOH:
-coz Oomomoum -coz

 

 

OOOOHOOOO lO OHOOH

mmganizatic
meSanilac l
1965 and 1966
activity occu

to pressures

Gener

defined by th

were 35 follO

 

l.A‘
2.A:

199

reorganization previous to passage Of Public Act 289. Also,
the Sanilac Intermediate District had more annexations during
1965 and 1966 than at any previous time. The same type of
activity occurred in many other intermediate districts due

to pressures brought about by passage of Public Act 289.

Adequate School Districts

 

General criteria for an adequate school district as
defined by the State Reorganization Committee (see page 176)
were as follows:

1. A kindergarten through twelve grade program.

2. A minimum enrollment of 2,000 pupils in kinder-

garten through twelfth grade.

3. A minimum of $12,000 per resident child.

As of July 1, 1966 there was a total of 977 school
districts. Four hundred and thirty-seven of these districts
did not meet the state committee's requirement of offering a
K-12 program, which left only 540 districts that did meet
the first requirement.

Of the 540 K-lZ districts 100 had an enrollment of
less than 2,000 pupils. Therefore, they did not meet the
committee's second criterion, although they did meet the re-
quirements of having a K-lZ program and at least $12,000 for
every resident pupil.

An additional 130 districts were inadequate because

they had less than $12,000 behind each resident pupil, although

they did me:
offering a 1

Two
the basis 01
each resider
rolled. Hm.

This
the state of

adequacy tha

Committee,

It i
of elections
it is eXPECt-
termediate d,
eliminated.

for the elim;

mom °Ptimist
EnVisiOns n

trims, but t

imprOVe high

200

they did meet the criteria of having 2,000 enrollment and
Offering a K-12 program.

Two hundred and six districts were inadequate on
the basis of two criteria. They had less than $12,000 for
each resident pupil, and had fewer than 2,000 pupils en-
rolled. However, they did offer a K-lZ program.

This left only 104 districts, of a total of 977 in
the state of Michigan, that met all three criteria for
adequacy that were suggested by the State Reorganization

Committee.

Future Outlook

 

It is impossible to accurately predict the outcome
of elections, but due to the findings of this investigation,
it is expected that under the pending 289 elections of in-
termediate districts many more school districts will be
eliminated. However, none of the proposed plans provide
for the elimination of inadequate high school districts. The
most Optimistic prediction Of the results of the elections
envisions no more than elimination of non—high school dis-
tricts, but the current legislation will not significantly
improve high school districts.

Power groups in intermediate districts such as St. Clair,
Wayne, and Cass indicate they will do everything possible to

<iefeat reorganization elections, which means that inadequate

201

TABLE 6

Number of School Districts 1956-66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Number Number of Percentage
Year of Districts Districts Reduced of Reduction
1956 3,491 301 8.62%
1957 3,190 637 19.97%
1958 2,553 193 7.56%
1959 2,360 109 4.62%
1960 2,251 255 11.33%
1961 1,996 200 10.02%
1962 1,796 162 9.02%
1963 1,634 196 12.0 %
1964 1,438 218 15.16%
1965 1,240 243 19.60%

 

1966 977 263 26.70%

 

school distr
sions of Pub
several inte
partially su
election is
school distr:
termediate d;

elections or

 

constituent j

StratiVe unit

202

school districts will remain in those areas after all provi-
sions of Public Act 289 have been completed. Furthermore,
several intermediate districts held elections that were only
partially successful under Method #2, but since no other
election is required after Method #2 has been used, inadequate
school districts will remain in those areas also. Even in-
termediate districts that held successful reorganization
elections or that maintained the status quo do not have all
constituent local districts organized into satisfactory admini-

strative units.

SUMMARY

The entire history of school district reorganization
in Michigan shows that the current reorganization legislation
is a natural result of educational activity in the state.

Public Act 289 of 1964 was the most comprehensive
legislation pertaining to school district reorganization that
was ever approved by the Michigan Legislature. The purpose
of the act was to stimulate school district reorganization by
providing for the study and development of plans for the re-
organization of school districts so that all children in
Michigan would be in adequate school districts. An adequate
school district was generally considered to be one that had
a minimum pupil enrollment of 2,000 pupils, $12,000 behind
every resident child, and a kindergarten through twelfth

grade program.

203

A state reorganization committee was appointed as well
as a committee in each intermediate school district. The duty
of the state committee was to develOp plans and procedures for
a statewide reorganization program, and the intermediate com-
mittees were to prepare reorganization plans for their respec-
tive districts.

Any plan presented had to be approved by the electors
before it could become effective.

The legislation is semi-permissive and relies on the
cooperation of various parties in order to put it into effect.
Its characteristics are similar to those contained in reorga-
nization acts of many other states.

There were various factors that stimulated reorganiza-
tion as well as many that retarded reorganization.

Michigan had five classifications of school districts
when the legislation took effect and several permissive
methods for reorganizing school systems.

Generally, the plans submitted by intermediate school
districts were very fine and were readily approved by the state
committee. However, a few proposals created special problems.

At the very thmathis study was being conducted, school
district reorganizations were taking place. The fact that all
elections under provisions of the act had not been completed
somewhat limits this analysis. However, certain significant

conclusions evolved from the investigation.

204

Results of elections were relatively satisfactory,
although many inadequate school districts existed in Michi-
gan as of July 1, 1966. The pending elections under provi-
sions of Act 289 will eliminate some of the inadequate dis-
tricts, but still there will be many remaining after all

requirements of Public Act 289 have been met.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions

 

A review of the literature pertaining to school district
reorganization reveals that reorganization of school districts
is continuing at a rapid pace throughout the nation. This
trend began shortly after World War II as a result of an in-
creasing population and demands of the public for improved
educational services. Most peOple seem to have awakened to
the fact that educational needs have changed and that to keep
pace with the changes, schools have to Offer much more sophis-
ticated programs than ever before. Therefore, the reduction
of school districts will continue until many more children are
located in administrative units that will provide effective
educational programs. Reorganization has been impeded by
several factors such as distrust, misunderstanding, and lack
of knowledge about the program. Thus far, however, the desire
to Obtain adequate school districts has been strong enough to
overcome most delaying factors. This desire to obtain adequate
school districts has been the primary factor stimulating re-
organization. Also, studies of the results of reorganization

205

206

programs have shown a much greater number of positive features
than negative ones existing in school districts after they
have reorganized. However, there are many who still Oppose
reorganization, and the lack of agreement concerning criteria
to measure school district adequacy creates a problem for pro-
ponents of reorganization. Much more study is needed concern-
ing the results of reorganization and the criteria for
determining an adequate school district.

The progress of school district reorganization on a
state level is revealed by the national survey of all the
states. The following conclusions concerning individual states
were reached:

1. According to data collected from the various state
departments of education there are great varia-
tions in the type Of reorganization legislation
adopted by the states. However, there are common
features in their reorganization legislation.
Examples of these common features are a statewide
approach, provision for county or local committees,
emphasis on systematic planning, and provision for
a state administrative agency to develop policies
and procedures.

2. The goal in every state that is conducting reorga-

nization activities seems to be to reduce the o

207

number of school districts in an effort to improve
educational Opportunities.

Many states have established minimum standards of
adequacy for their school districts. Generally
these standards deal with minimum enrollment and
financial ability.

Most states appear to be making great efforts to
eliminate closed school districts.

Several states have had limited reorganization
activity but are conducting extensive statewide
studies to determine the effectiveness of their
school administrative units.

A few states still have separate elementary and
secondary school districts, but are attempting

to consolidate them. Unfortunately, some states
have statutes pertaining to school financial
support that deter consolidation of elementary

and secondary school districts.

Fairly general agreement was found that the method
of organizing school districts along county poli-
tical lines has been more expedient in reorganizing
school administrative units than any other method.
Several states have had to use mandatory legisla-
tion to satisfactorily reorganize their school

districts.

208

9. Based on trends Observed since World War II, it
is reasonable to assume that school district re-
organization will continue in the various states.

10. The state of Michigan has not been in the forefront
in school district reorganization, but Public Act
289 of 1964 has many features in common with the
reorganization legislation of several states that
have successfully reorganized their school districts
and should cause Michigan to move among the leaders
in school district reorganization.

Originally the school districts of Michigan were
organized on the basis of local need without an overall plan
for the state. However, the need for expanded school districts
and more advanced educational programs became Obvious at an
early date. The very first state superintendent of public in-
struction recommended legislation for school district reorgani-
zation, and this set the pattern for later state superintendents.
People in the state of Michigan have always demonstrated a
sincere interest in the education of their children. However,
Michigan has not been a leader in the reorganization of school
districts. Consequently, just a few years ago the state had
an excessive number of school districts that did not meet
minimum enrollment and financial standards. The state had a
peak number of 7,362 school districts in 1912, but from that

point on reorganization reduced the number of districts each

209

year. Educators, citizens, and legislators seemed to develop
an understanding of the continued need for establishment of
more adequate school districts through reorganization. Al-
though there have always been examples of opposition, all
reorganization legislation passed since the early 1920's has
provided improved methods of reorganizing school districts
into more adequate administrative units. Reorganization in
Michigan was stimulated by permissive legislation and by
various state department sponsored and university sponsored
studies of school district reorganization. However, the
philOSOphy of the state to pass only permissive legislation
for school district reorganization and to leave initiative

to local communities undoubtedly retarded reorganization prO-
gress in Michigan.

According to the historical pattern Of school district
reorganization in Michigan, it is merely a matter of time be-
fore school districts will be further reorganized into more
adequate administrative units. The longer it takes for this
to be done, the more harm will be done to those children re-
siding in school districts generally defined as inadequate.
Citizens of Michigan have long had the opportunity to organize
their school districts into satisfactory units under permis-
sive legislative measures.and recently were stimulated to re-

organize under semi-mandatory legislation. However, it is

210

clear that more mandatory legislation will be needed to
attain the objective of adequate school districts throughout
the state.

Public Act 289 of 1964 was the most extensive school
district reorganization legislation ever approved in the
state of Michigan. This act evolved naturally from the his-
tory of school district reorganization in Michigan, and it
followed the philosophy that was established in the state
as far back as 1900. Although it is a permissive law, it
has mandatory features in it, which at least forced every
intermediate district to study its school district situation
and to make recommendations for the annexation Of non-high
school districts and consolidation of inadequate high school
districts. This was the legislature's first departure from
permissive legislation except for the 1955 act which elimi-
nated closed school districts.

There are weaknesses in Public Act 289»as a result
of compromises that had to be made to obtain passage by the
legislature. Several problems developed in putting the
legislation into operation. Misunderstanding of citizens
and organized Opposition contributed to the difficulty of
making the act Operational. Another problem was that the
state reorganization committee had not defined specific cri-
teria for determination of an adequate school district.

Lack of leadership and self interest among intermediate

211

and local superintendents delayed reorganization in some
areas of the state.

Public Act 289 of 1964 helped eliminate many non—
high school districts and helped improve some K-12 districts.
Although the act was effective in improving Michigan school
districts both directly and indirectly, there were certain
weaknesses in the law and difficulties in the application of
the law. Two years after the inception of Public Act 289
Michigan still has only 104 adequate school districts out of
a total of 977. After all requirements of the law have been
completed many Of the inadequate districts will continue to
Operate.

Although it may have been very simple for the legis-
lature to merely have all school districts reorganized into
' county or other preconceived units, this type of action may
not have provided the best units to meet the educational
needs of Michigan children. Therefore, the Michigan Legis-
lature passed legislation that left the initiative to inter-
mediate committees and local citizens to form their school
districts into more adequate administrative units. However,
some conservative, hard-core administrators and board mem-
bers fought reorganization and managed to maintain their
grossly inadequate school systems. Because opposition to

Central control Of any kind is deeply ingrained in these

212

districts, there is little chance that any type of permissive
legislation will cause them to consolidate or annex. Conse-
quently, since many communities did not take advantage of the
Opportunity to form more adequate school districts, an immed—
iate strengthening of legislation is needed to complete the
reorganization of school districts into adequate administra-

tive units for all children in the state.

Implications for Further Research

 

Further research on school district reorganization
should be conducted as follows:

A study should be done to develOp criteria and an
instrument that can be used to determine adequacy of school
districts.

Studies should be conducted to determine the effects
that school district reorganization has had on the educational
program of districts that have been reorganized.

Studies should be conducted to measure the effects
that school district reorganization has on the learning of
children in reorganized school districts.

Studies should be conducted to determine changes in
interest and participation Of citizens in school districts
that have reorganized.

Additional studies should be made to evaluate the
progress, kinds of legislation, and results of school district

reorganization in other states.

213

Primary consideration should be given to an analysis
of the total results of Public Act 289 of 1964, when all pro-
visions of the act have been completed.

A study should be conducted to determine socioecono-
mic changes that occur as a result Of school district re-
organization.

Studies should be conducted to determine maximum and
minimum pupil enrollment for adequate high schools in the
state of Michigan.

Studies should be made in Michigan to determine the
adequacy of small high schools.

A detailed study should be conducted of the factors
that have caused retardation Of school district reorganiza-

tion in Michigan.

Recommendations

 

The following recommendations are included in this
study to suggest guidelines for those who are interested in
or responsible for reorganization of school districts.

1. That the Michigan State Department of Education
take an active public relations role in dissolving fears and
informing citizens at the "grass roots" level of the advan—
tages of reorganizing school districts into more adequate

administrative units.

214

2. That a brief history of the development of Michi-
gan's public school system and school district reorganization,
including a description of the responsibility of the state in
reorganizing school districts, be prepared in a manual for
distribution to local and intermediate school districts and
communities.

3. That a long range plan with definite goals for
school district reorganization be prepared by the State De-
partment of Education. Such a plan should be subject to
revision as educational needs change.

4. That specific criteria and guidelines be defined
by the State Department of Education and made available in
manual form for the reorganization of school districts into
more adequate administrative units.

5. That the special legislative acts that established
the remaining special act school districts be repealed.

6. That additional study be conducted to determine
if previously reorganized school districts should be further
reorganized in order to form more adequate school districts,
particularly in those intermediate districts where suggestion
for further study was made by the reorganization committee.

7. That the State School Aid Act be related to degree of
adequacy of school districts as determined by the State De-

partment of Education.

215

8. That special provision be made in the State School
Add Act for isolated school districts that have no opportunity
to reorganize into more adequate school districts.
9. That financial stimulus be provided for districts
that improve themselves through annexation or consolidation.
10. That legislation be approved to provide for the
mandatory reorganization of all remaining non-high school
districts.
11. That legislation be approved that provides for an
equitable settlement of operational millage and bonded in-

debtedness among districts that are reorganized.

Alford, ]
1

American

.aiflerlCan

Barr. w.

B811, J2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alford, Robert R. "School District Reorganization and Com-
munity Integration," Harvard Educational Review, 30
(Fall, 1960), 350-71.

 

American Association of School Administrators and Department
of Rural Education Association. School District Or-
ganization; Journey That Must Not End. Washington,
D. C.: The Association, 1962.

 

American Association of School Administrators. Administra-
tion in Newly Reogganized Districts. Washington,
D. C.: The Association, 1965.

 

 

Barr, W. Monfort; Church, Harold; Stapley, Maurice; McGheney,
Marion A. School District Reorganization in Indiana.
Indiana University of Education Bulletin No. 35.
Bloomington, Indiana: Division of Research and Field
Services, November, 1959.

 

Bell, James William. "Reorganization Plans of Selected County
Planning Committees Created by Senate Bill 400 and
Implications Relating to Future Reorganization Legis—
lation." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University
of Kansas, 1963.

Bendetti, William R. "The Legislative Role of the Pennsylvania
State Education Association.” Unpublished Ed.D. dis-
sertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1964.

Benton, Edwin Joseph. "A History of Public Education in Mis-
souri, 1760-1964." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
St. Louis University, 1965.

Best, John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1959.

 

Bickley, Carl E. "An Analysis of Selected Factors Which Aid
or Deter School District Reorganization in Certain
Indiana Counties." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Indiana, 1958.

216

217

Bough, Max. "Educational Opportunities in the Secondary
Schools of Vigo County, Indiana, Before and After
School District Reorganization," Teachers Collegg
Journal, 35 (November, 1963), 51-52.

 

Boyle, Thomas Joseph. "State Leadership in Massachusetts
Public Education, 1780-1860." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, The University of Connecticut, 1963.

Bruce, William C. "Is District Reorganization Halted?"
American School Board Journal, 141 (December, 1960),
34.

Buck, Roy C. "School District Reorganization: Some Consi-

derations for Sociological Research," Journal of
Educational Sociology, 28 (September, 1954), 25-29.

 

 

Bureau of Research and Service, College of Education, Michi-
gan State University. School DistrictReorganization.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State’University,-
1956.

 

Bureau of School Services, The University of Michigan. Why
Mer e? A Realistic Appraisal of the Small High
c 001. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of

Michigan, 1962.

 

California State Department of Education. Manual for the
Study of School District Orgapization by COuntinom-
flittees. Sacramento, Ca1ifOrnia: California State
Department of Education, March, 1962.

 

 

Campbell, Roald F. "Feelings Are Facts in School District
Reorganization," Nation's Schools, 57 (March, 1956)
58-60.

 

Campbell, Roald F. "The Folklore of Local School Control,"
School Review, 67 (Spring, 1959), 1-16.

 

Campbell, Roald F. and Garofalo, Marius P. A Study Guide on
School District Or anization in Ohio. Columbus,
Ohio: University ress, 1954.

 

 

Campbell, Robert Conner. "A History of Public School.Build-
ing Finance in New Jersey, 1871-1961." Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University,
1963.

218

Carpenter, William W. "Planning Satisfactory Local Admini~
strative Districts," Junior College Journal, 31
(September, 1960), 36-39.

 

Carrothers, George E.,Director. A Six-Year Study of North
Central Association High Schools in Michigan, 1929-
30 to 1934-45, Annual Report of the Bureau of Coop-
eration with Educational Institutions, Lansing,
MiChigan: Department Of’Public Instruction, 1934.

 

 

Casey, Don William. "Identification of Criteria Which Denote
Adequate District Organization and a Description of
Procedures for Evaluation of Those Districts." Un-
published Ed.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas,
1963.

Chisholm, Leslie L. School District Reogganization. Chica-
go: The Midwest AdministratiOn Center, UfiiVersity
of Chicago, 1957.

 

Clemo, Robert, and Wann, Loren A. "District Organization
Patterns Change," California Education, 1 (February,
1946), 25-27.

Coffey, Wilford L. A Study of the Consolidation of Rural
Schools in Michigan. ’BfilletiniNo. 28.7—Lansing,
Michigan: Department of Public Instruction, 1919.

 

Cole, Everett Sickler. "The History of Public Elementary
Education in Wichita, Kansas, from 1871 to 1963."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State Col-
lege, 1964.

College of Education, Michigan State University. School
District Reorganization. Professional Series Bulle—
tin’NO. 19. EastSLansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, 1956.

 

Colorado Department of Education. School District Opganiza-
tion. Denver, Colorado. Department of Education,
January, 1966.

Conant, James B. The American Hi h School Today. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 195 .

 

Connecticut State Department of Education, Bureau of Research,
Statistics and Finance. Regional School Districts in
Connecticut, 1961.

 

219

Cowan, 1. Newton. ”Problems Related to the Formation and
Operation of Reorganized School Districts in Penn-
sylvania." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Temple
University, 1956.

Craver, Daniel Troy. ”School District Reorganization;
Feasibility of Methods for Locating Boundary Lines
of Sociological Trade Area Communities." Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, University of Texas, 1959.

Cunningham, Luvern L. ”A School District and City Govern-
ment,” American School Board Journal, 141 (December,
1960), 9-11 and 37.

 

Dawson, Howard A. and Isenberg, Robert M. "Status Report
on District Reorganization," School Executive, 75
(October, 1955), 68-70.

 

Dawson, Howard A. and Isenberg, Robert M. "Status Report on
District Reorganization," School Executive, 78
(February, 1959), 75-76.

 

Dawson, Howard A. and Reeves, Floyd W., et a1. Your School
District, Washington, D. C.: Department of Rural
Education, National Education Association of the
United States, 1948.

 

Dawson, Howard A. "Blueprint for Progress," Phi Delta Kap-
pan, 26 (October, 1954), 55-62.

 

Delos, Dale Williams. "Oregon School District Reorganization

1957-64 and Implications for Improvement." Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University,
1965.

Department of Education, Rural Division, State of Minnesota.
Equality of Educational Opportunity. St. Paul,
Minnesota: *Department of Education, 1947.

 

Detering, Edmund Louis. "Development of School Districts
in St. Louis County with Special Emphasis Upon the
Application of Missouri Senate Bill No. 307." Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, Washington University,
1955.

Edgar, William John. "Factors Which Aid or Impede the Es-
tablishment of Regional Secondary Schools in
Massachusetts." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Boston University, 1956.

220

Elliott, Eugene B. Rural Michigan, A Workbook for Discussion,
Planningand Action. Lansing, MiChigan: Department
Of Public Instruction, 1940.

 

 

Farley, Melvin. "A Study of Local Level Leadership for School
District Reorganization in Nebraska." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1953.

First, Joan M. "The Elkton-Pigeon-Bay Port Story," Michi an
Education Journal, 38 (September, 1960), 7-10

 

Fitzwater, Charles 0. ”Trends in School District Reorganiza-
tion," School Life, 39 (April, 1957), 5-7.

 

Fitzwater, C. 0. Educational Change in Reorganized School
Districts. U. S. Department of Health, Educaiion
and Welfare, Office of Education, Bulletin NO. 4 of
1953, Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1953.

 

 

Fitzwater, C. 0. School District Reorganization, Policies and
Procedures. Washington, D. C.: United Stated Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1957.

 

 

Garber, Lee 0. Once a Merger, Always a Merger, District Finds,"
Nation's Schools, 71 (June, 1963), 58.

 

Gaumnitz, Walter H. "Independent School Districts Decrease
and Increase," School Life, 42 (December, 1959), l4-
l7.

Gaumnitz, Walter H. Small Schools Are Growing Larggp. U. S.
Department ofSHealth, EdUcation and—Welfare, Office
Of Education, The Rural School Survey. Washington,
D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1959.

 

George Peabody College for Teachers, Division of Survey and
Field Services. nganization Of School Systems in
Geor ia. A Survey Report. Nashville, Tennessee:
George Peabody College for Teachers, 1965.

 

Getts, Paul Robert. "A History of Education in Indiana,
Pennsylvania." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Pennsylvania State University, 1965.

Goldhammer, Keith. "The Power Structure Behind the Admini-

stration of the Community's Schools," American Shhool
Board Journal, 159 (October, 1959), 27-30.

 

 

221

Governor's Committee on Education, State of Alaska. Ag
Over-All Education Plan for Rural Alaska. Juneau,
Aiaska, 1963.

 

Green, Harold E. "A Comparison of School Districts in
Missouri Before and After Reorganization." Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of
Missouri, 1953.

Greider, Calvin and Romine, Stephen. American Public Edu-
cation: An Introduction. Second Edition. New
YOrk: Ronald Press Co., 1955.

 

 

Hamilton, DeForest, and Rowe, Robert N. "Academic Achieve—
ment of Students in Reorganized and Non-Reorganized
Districts," Phi Delta Kappan, 43 (June, 1962), 401—04.

 

Hamlin, H. M. and Sumption, M. R. New Community Unit School
Districts. University of Illinois Bulletin, Urbana,
Illinois: University of Illinois, 1951.

 

 

Harrington, Edmund Ross. "A History of School Organization

and Administration in Kern County." Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, University of Southern Califor-
nia, 1963.

Hayes, Dale K. The Nebraska Community Education Project.'
The Analysis and’Evaluation. Iincoin, Nebraska:
Teachers Coliege, University of Nebraska, 1962.

 

 

Hobbs, Max Eugene. "An Analysis of Indiana Statutes Con-
cerning Public School Finance, 1931 Through 1963."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University,

1965.

Hunt, Lester William. "The Development of a State Level
Policy in School District Reorganization." Un-
published Ed.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska,
1959.

Hunt, R. L., editor. "School District Reorganization,"

Phi Delta Kappan, 32 (March, 1951), 297-345.

 

Illinois State Department of Education. Illinois State
Advisory Commission on School Reorganization, Spring-
field, Illinois: State of Illinois, 1949.

222

Iowa Department of Public Instruction. Policy Statement,
Future Goals for Public Schools in Iowa: Iowa State
Department of Public Instruction, 1963.

 

Jackson, George L. The Development of State Control of Public
Instruction in Michigan. Lansing,Michigan. Michigan
Historical Commission, 1926.

 

 

Jacobsen, G. 8. "School District Reorganization in Selected
Counties in Idaho." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Berkley, 1957.

Janetos, Peter. ”Obstacles to District Reorganization," The
School Executive, 74 (February, 1955), 54-55.

 

Janetos, Peter. "A Study of State Level Leadership for
School District Reorganization in Nebraska." Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of
Nebraska, 1953.

Jenson, Theodore J. "Identification and Utilization of
Opinion Leaders in School District Reorganization.”
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Wisconsin, 1952.

Johnson, John S. "Leadership Process in the Development of
the Missouri School Reorganization Law." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1953.

Kansas Department of Public Instruction. Unification Progress
Report as of May 1, 1966. Topeka,_Khnsas: Depart—
ment of Public Instruciion, 1966.

 

 

Kent, Walter Knight. "Educational Opportunities in Nine In-
diana Reorganized High Schools." Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, Indiana University, 1957.

Kerr, Clay W. "School District Reorganization in Oklahoma."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Oklahoma.

Keisel, Ferd J. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Unified
District. Report of the Second Conference on Unified
School Districts, 1953.

Kreitlow, Burton W. School District Reorganization. Documen—
tary. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin,
Department of Education, 1961.

 

Lentz, Jo]
t:
d;
Louisiana
H1
6

lyles, JO
D

C
U
N

Maine Sch
n

Martin , C

(Arr-f

Mathieson

C
t

MCClure ,
C

I

MCIntyre

MCIntyre

3

223

Lentz, John William. "Basic Legal Controls of School Dis-
trict Organization in Colorado.” Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, University of Denver, 1961.

Louisiana Department of Education, Factors in Schools'
Holdin Power, Baton Rouge,SLouisiana: Department
of Education, 1964.

Lyles, Joseph Henry. "A Study Of Selected Phases of School
District Reorganization as Carried Out in South
Carolina from July 1, 1951, Through June 30, 1954."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
North Carolina, 1958.

 

Maine School District Commission. School District Reorga-
nization in Maine, 1953.

Martin, C. Jack. ”Consolidation in Southern Mountain Coun-
try," The School Executive, 79 (December, 1959),
32-33.

 

Mathieson, Samuel James. "A History of Public Schools in
Colorado: 1859-1880." Unpublished Ed.D. disserta-
tion, University of Denver, 1963.

McClure, Major L. ”Legislative Controls Over the Public
School Curriculum.” Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
University Of Oklahoma, 1957.

McClurkin, W. D., Director, Division of Surveys and Field
Services, George Peabody College for Teachers.
Organization of School Systems in Georgia. Nash-
Ville, Tennessee: George Peabody College for
Teachers, 1965.

 

McHenry, Verne A. "School District Reorganization in Utah."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Utah,
1965.

McIntyre, Kenneth E. "The Kind of Schools We Need," Phi
‘ Delta Kappan (March, 1951), 320.

 

McIntyre, Kenneth E. "Progress and Problems of Redistrict-
ing," American School Board Journal, 128 (March,
1954), 38-40:

 

McLure, William P. "School Finance in District Reorganiza-
tion," Phi Delta Kappan, 32 (March, 1951), 321-26.

 

224

Metzger, William Ellis. "A History Of State and Local Support
of Nebraska Public School." Unpublished Ed.D. dis-
sertation, University of Nebraska, 1965.

Michigan Department of Public Instruction, One Hundredth Re-
port of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, For
ihe Biennium 1948;50. Lansing, Midhigan: Department
Of Public Instruction, 1950.

 

 

 

Michigan Department of Public Instruction. Michigan's System
of Public Education. Bulletin No. 407. Lansing,
Michigan: Department of Public Instruction, 1944.

 

 

Michigan Department of Public Instruction. The Means of
Education, A Report of the Progress Of the School
FacilitiesSurvey in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan:
Department of Public—Instruction, April, 1953.

 

 

 

Michigan Department of Public Instruction. A Charter for
Rural Education, Lansing, Michigan: _Department Of
Pfiblic Instruction, 1948.

 

 

Michigan Department‘of Public Instruction. Consolidated
Schools, Bulletin NO. 28, Lansing, MiEhigan: Depart-
ment of Public Instruction, 1919.

 

Michigan Department of Public Instruction. A Report of the
Progress of the School Facilities Survey in Michigan,
Lansing, Michigan: Department of Puhlic Instructibn,
1953.

 

 

Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Division of Ad-
ministrative Services, Michigan lZ-Grade School Dis-
tricts, 1958-59. Annual Report. Lansing, Michigan:
Department of Public Instruction, 1959.

 

Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Administrative
Services Division. Michigan School Districts, 1962.
Lansing, Michigan: Department of Public Instruction,
1962.

 

Michigan Department of Education. Annual Report Of Division
of Administrative Services, Lansing, Michigan: De-
partment of Education, Juiy, 1965.

 

 

Michigan Education Association and the State Department of
Public Instruction. Michigan's Public Schools.
Lansing, Michigan: Department of Pfiblic Instruction,
1934.

 

lhddle‘

Milwau'

Minnes
Morgan
MOrphe
Natior
Natior
Nebras
Nitell

NOTmaJ

Packaf

Parky]

225

Middleton, William Elbert. "The History and Development of
Public School Pupil Transportation in Mississippi."
unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of
Mississippi, 1959.

Milwaukee County School Committee. Your Schools. A Plan by
the Milwaukee County School Committee for Reorganizing
School Districts. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Milwaukee
County School Committee, July, 1950.

 

Minnesota Department of Education. RisingEducational Re-
quirements Call for District Reorganization. St. Paul,
Minnesota: Department of Education, October, 1956.

 

 

Morgan, Griscom. "The Values Of School Reorganization."
Phi Delta Kappan, October, 1954), ll-14.

 

Morphet, Edgar L. and Ross, John G. Local Responsibility for
Education in Small School Districts, 1961. Legislaiive
PrOhlems No. 2. Berkley, California: University of.
California, January, 1961.

 

 

National Association, Research Division. Estimates of School
Statistics, 1965-66. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1965.

 

 

National Education Association, Research Division. N.E.A. Re-
search Memo. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1963.

 

 

Nebraska Department of Education. Governor's 1963-64 Confer-

ence on Education. Lincoln, Nebraska: Department of
Education, 1964.

 

 

Nicely, Robert Francis.. "Legislative Developments in School.
District Organization in Pennsylvania." Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1956.

Norman, Loyal V. A Slice of Nevada School Reorganization.
Philadelphia: Durance 8 Company, 1964.

 

Packard, John C.- "Local School District Size vs. Local Control,"

The American School Board JournalL 146 (February, 1963),
9-10.

 

Page, Ray. Opportunities and Benefits of the Community Unit
SchoOl District in Illinois. Springfield, Illinois:
DEpartment of Education, l962.

 

 

Parkyn, G.W. The Consolidation Of Rural Schools. London:
Univer§ity Press, 1952.

 

226

Pokham, Donald Fremont. "A Historical Study of Public School
Legislation in Colorado." Unpublished Ed.D. disserta-
tion, University Of Colorado, 1956.

Rahn, Alta Pauline. "A Study of the Forces Affecting School
Legislation of Illinois From 1818 to 1838." Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, Bradley University, 1957.

Rice, Arthur H., Editor. Michigan's Public Schools. Lansing,
Michigan: Department of Public Instruction, 1934.

 

Roe, William Henry. "Administrative Structural Reorganization
in Michigan With Special Reference to Community School
Districts.” Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University
of Michigan, 1950.

Roesch, Winston L. "Selected Areas for Research in School Dis-
trict Reorganization," Phi Delta Kappan, 40 (May,
1959), 328-30.

 

Rogers, John Allen. "A History of School Organization and Ad-
ministration in Ventura County." Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, University of Southern California, 1961.

Schultz, John G. "Fewer, Bigger, Better," National Education
Association Journal, 48 (November, 1959), 10-13.

 

 

Smittle, W. Ray and Darbee, John. A Digest of Michi an School
Law. Clawson, Michigan: Ohklhnd Education ress,
1957.

 

Springer, John Beryl. "Educational Changes in Pennsylvania
Through Legislation and Administrative Interpretations,
1929-1954." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, George
Peabody College for Teachers, 1955.

Strolle, Roland S. "A Study of School District Reorganization
in Michigan." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Michigan, 1955.

Szudy, Leonard A. "A Half Century of Public Education in West
Allis, Wisconsin, From 1906 to 1959.” Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1960.

 

Thaden, J. F. Equalizin Educational Opportunities Through
Community School DiStricts. Michigan Siate University
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Special
Bulletin NO. 410. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
State University, January, 1957.

 

Thursto

United

United
Washin
WEndta

White

W11CO

wills

wrig

wrig

227

Thurston, Lee M. Report of the Central States Conference Of
Departments of EdECation.’iCOnservation Training
SEhool, Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of
Public Instruction, 1948.

 

 

United States Department of the Interior, Office of Education.
Principles and Procedures in the Organization of Satis-
factory Local School Units. 1938 Bulletin No. 11.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1939.

 

 

United States Office of Education. Summary of 1953-54 Statis-
tics of State School Systems. washington, D.Cl:
Government Printing Office, 1956.

 

 

Washington Department of Public Instruction, Changes in School
District Organization, Olympia, Washington: Depart-
ment ofiPublic Instruction, 1965.

 

 

Wendt, Robert Chris. ”A Historical Study of the Oregon Elementary
School Principals' Association. " Unpublished Ed. D.
dissertation, University Of Oregon, 1965.

White House Conference Staff, 1960. Recommendations for Educa-
tion from 1960 White House Cohference on Children and

Youth. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1960.

 

 

Wilcox, Orlery W. "Misconceptions About School District Re-
organization," American School Board Journal, 138 (April,
1959), 24-26.

 

Williams, Delos Dale. "Oregon School District Reorganization
of 1957-64 and Implications for Improvement." Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University,
1965.

Wright, Clare B. "A History of Financial Support of Public
Education in Oklahoma From 1907 to 1961.” Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1963.

Wright, Grace S. Enrollment Size and Educational Effectiveness
of the High SChool. iwashington, D.C.: U.S. Department
Of Health, Education and Welfare, 1956.

 

 

, The Best in School Bonds. Bulletin NO. 419.
Lansing, Michigan: Department of Public Instruction,
1958.

 

 

228

 

 

, Bigger and Fewer School Districts. National
Education ssociation Bulletin No. 38. Twashington,
D.C.: National Education Association, February, 1960.

, Courses of Study for the High Schools Of
Michigan. Bulletin NO. 12. Lansing, Michigan: De-
partment of Public Instruction, 1914.

 

 

 

, Di est of the School Laws of Michi an. Bulle-
tin’No. l3. Lansing, Michigan: Department 0 Public
Instruction, 1913.

, "DO Small Districts Assure Better Local Con-

 

trol?" School Management, 5 (June, 1961), 16-22.

, Historical Sketches of Education in Michigan.

 

Lan§ing: W. S. George, State Printers and Binders,
1881.

, "How Eight School Districts Work Together,"

 

SchoolManagpment, 5 (April, 1961), 68-70 and 114-118.

 

, Report Of Sub-Committee on School District
“Reorganization. Lansing, Michigan: Department of
Public Instruction, 1948.

, Report of the Timberlane Cooperative School

 

District Planning Board to the Voters of Atkinson,
Dansville, Plaistow, and Sandown, New Hampshire, May,
1964.

, Rural Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Depart-
ment of Puhlic Instruction, 1943.

 

, School District Organizationby County Com-
mittees. Bulletin of the California State Department
of Education, Sacramento, California: State Depart-
ment of Education, March, 1962

, "School District Reorganization Issue,"

 

Teachers College Journal, 29 (May, 1958) 81-100.

 

$1

is

E
I
II-
I‘
I‘
l

 

229
388.681 GENERAL SCHOOL LAws— PART III 642

REORGANBZATION OF DISTRICTS
Act 289, 1964, p. 584; Eff. Aug. 28.

AN ACT to provide for the study and development of plans for the reorganization
of school districts and for elections to accomplish same; to provide for the creation of
state and intermediate reorganization committees; to prescribe their powers and duties; to
provide for hearings and elections on reorganization plans; and to prescribe the powers and
duties of the superintendent of public instruction.

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

388.681 Reorganization of school districts; definitions. [M.S.A. 15.2299(l)]

Sec. 1. As used in this act:

(a) “Reorganization of school districts” means the formation Of new school districts,
the alteration of boundaries Of established school districts, and the dissolution or disorgan-
ization of established school districts through or by means of any one or combination of the
methods as set forth in this act.

(1)) “State committee" means the-state committee for the reorganization of school
districts created in this act.

(c) “Intermediate committee" means the committee for the reorganization of school
districts created in this act. '

(dl “Plan of reorganization" means a concrete proposal for readjustment and realign-
ment of the boundaries of school districts within an intermediate school district area.

(cl “Non-high school district” means a school district presently Operating less than
a kindergarten through twelfth grade program.

(f) “School code” means Act No. 269 of the Public Acts of IOSS, as amended. being
sections 340.1 to 340.984 of the Compiled Laws Of 1948.

388.682 State committee; appointment, distribution, vacancies, compensation.

[M.S.A. 15.2299(2)]

Sec. 2. There is created, for the term Of time necessary to complete the requirements of
this act, a state committee for the reorganization of school districts, appointed by the
governor, and composed of 7 members, at least 1 of whom shall represent the Upper
Peninsula, 1 the area above the Bay City-Muskegon line, and 5 shall be appointed in such
manner as to represent fairly the remainder of the state. The superintendent of public
instruction shall be the nonvoting chairman of the committee. Vacancies shall be filled
by appointment of the governor. Members Of the state committee shall serve without
compensation. The members of the committee shall be appointed within 60 days after
the effective date of this act.

388.683 Same; officers, records, meetings, quorum. [M.S.A. 15.2299(3)]

Sec. 3. Within 90 days after the effective date Of this act, the stale committee shall
organize by electing a vice-chairman and a secretary. The vice-chairman shall act as
chairman at the request of the superintendent of public instruction. The secretary shall
keep the records of official committee meetings and prepare and distribute materials as
requested by the state committee. Meetings of the committee shall be held upon the call
of the chairman or any 3 of the members thereof. Five members, which may include the
superintendent Of public instruction, constitute a quorum.

388.684 Same; school district reorganization program, surveys, approval of
proposals, reports. [M.S.A. 15.2299(4)]

Sec. 4. The state committee shall:

(:1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this act, develop policies, principles
and procedures for a statewide school district reorganization program planned so that all
areas may become part of a school district operating or designed to operate at least 12

643 MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES 388.685

grades. In no case can an intermediate district committee plan be submitted under this act
which would require the merger of 2 or more school districts of the third CllSS or higher
There shall be created no less than 500 school districts operating 12 grades.

(bl Direct area surveys and develop a manual of procedure to be printed and distributed
to all intermediate district superintendents of schools.

(cl Perform either by itself or by its authorized representative any or all of the
duties required by this act to be performed by the intermediate school district superintemlent.
the intermediate district board of education, the intermediate district committee, or the
probate judge or judges, in case of failure by any or all of them to perform these duties.

(d) Review and approve or reject intermediate district plans within 60 days after
receipt of plans from the intermediate district committees.

to) Report to each intermediate district the acceptance or rejection of the proposed
plans with recommendations for changes.

(fl Present a progress report on reorganization under this act to the state legislature
on or before March 1 of each year.

388. 685 Intermediate committee; membership, election, vacancies, organization,
duties. [M. S. A. 15. 2299(5)]

Sec. 5. (l) A committee shall be organized in each intermediate district in the state
to be known as the intermediate district committee for the reorganization of school districts.
The intermediate district superintendent of schools shall be nonvoting chairman of the inter-
mediate district committee. and he shall preside over all meetings of the intermediate district
committee. The intermediate district committee shall complete the requirements of this
act and ,comply with the requests made by the state committee.

There shall be 18 members on the intermediate district committee each of whom shall
be a registered resident elector. In intermediate districts containing no district operating
12 grades or more and in intermediate districts containing no non-high school districts the
committee shall consist of 13 members.

(2) Members of the intermediate district committee shall be. chosen as follows:

(a) The intermediate board of education shall appoint 3 of its members to serve on
the committee.

(b) The intermediate district superintendent of schools, by notice sent by mail, shall
call a meeting of the boards of education of all school districts operating a program of 12
grades or more in the intermediate district. The meeting shall be held at some convenient
place within the intermediate district within 60 days after the effective date of this act.
The intermediate district superintendent shall act as chairman of this meeting, and the
board members shall elect by ballot 5 persons to serve on the intermediate district com-
mittee not more than 2 of whom shall be from any one constituent district, unless there
are fewer districts than there are positions to fill. The 5 persons receiving the highest
number of votes shall be declared elected. No person may be elected to or serve on the
committee who is an employee of any constituent school district or of the intermediate
school district. The chairman shall appoint 3 or more tellers to conduct the election and
to canvass the vote. Whenever not more than 2 of the 5 members fail to serve on the
committee, the remaining members shall fill the vacancy from the same constituent district
in which the vacancy occurs. Whenever 3 or more vacancies occur at the same time,
the vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as the original committee members were
elected.

(c) The intermediate district superintendent of schools, by notice sent by mail, shall
call a meeting of the boards of education of all school districts operating less than a twelve-
grade program in the intermediate district. The meeting shall be held at some convenient
place within the intermediate district within 60 days after the effective date of this act.
"The intermediate district superintendent shall act as chairman of this meeting, and the
board members shall elect by ballot 5 persons to serve on the intermediate district committee
not more than 2 of whom shall be from any one constituent district, unless there are fewer

r qwm .. w. .-.'. ~_

 

met“
am:
jud:

dhtt
com:
men‘,
prov

 

388

nun
cha

it,

388.685 GENERAL SCHOOL LAWS— PART III 644

districts than there are positions to be filled. The 5 persons receiving the highest number
of votes shall be declared elected. No person may be elected to or serve on the committee
who is an employee of any constituent school district or of the intermediate school district.
The chairman shall appoint 3 or more tellers to conduct the election and to canvass the vote.
Whenever not more than 2 of the 5 members fail to serve on the committee, the remaining
members shall till the vacancy from the same constituent district in which the vacancy occurs.

Whenever a or more vacancies occur at the same time, the vacancies shall be filled in the
same manner as the original committee members were elected.

(d) The intermediate district superintendent of schools, by notice sent by letter, shall
notify the probate judge of the area, who, within 60 days after the effective date of this
act. shall appoint 5 members to the committee fairly representing all areas of the inter-
mediate district. The qualifications of these members shall be the same as those of the
other members of the committee. The probate judge shall fill all vacancies that may occur
among his appointees. In any intermediate district where there are 2 or more probate
judges the judges acting jointly shall make the appointments.

(3’) Organization of the intermediate district committee shall be completed in each
district within 6 months after the effective date of this act. If an intermediate district
committee has not been organized within '6 months. the state committee shall appoint the
members within 60 days thereafter. In which event the same limitations shall apply as
provided in this section.

388.686 Same; meetings, records; district reorganization plan, hearings, ap-

proval, revision, dissolution of committee. [M.S.A. 15.2299(6)]

Sec. 6. Each intermediate district committee shall elect a secretary who shall keep the
minutes and records of all official meetings. Meetings shall be held upon the call of the
chairman or any 3 members of the committee. A majority of the committee shall constitute
a quorum. The intermediate district committee shall follow the procedure guide provided
by the state committee and prepare a district reorganization plan, which shall be submitted
to the state committee for its approval or disapproval. The plan shall provide for the
reorganization of school districts within the intermediate district so that all areas of the
district may become a part of a school district operating or designed to operate at least 12
grades. The intermediate district committee shall hold at least 1 public hearing regarding
the plan but may hold as many more as it (items necessa1y. Hearings shall be advertised
by publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the districts 10 days
or more before the scheduled hearing. The intermediate district plan for reorganization
shall be submitted to the state committee for its consideration within 0 months after receiving
the manual of procedure from the state committee. If the intermediate district plan is
approved by the state committee. the plan shall be submitted to the electors as provided in
section 7 of this act. If an intermediate district plan is rejected by the state committee,
a revised plan shall be submitted by the intermediate district committee within 90 days
after receipt of the rejection of the original plan. If the revised plan is not accepted by
the state committee, the state committee shall submit a plan for the reorganization of the
school (districts'in the intermediate school district and the intermediate committee shall
also submit a plan for the reorganization of the school districts in the intermediate school
district. The intermediate school district board shall submit both plans to the electors
of the intermediate school district and the plan receiving the larger number of votes shall
be submitted to the qualified electors of the intermediate school district in accordance with
the requirements of method 2 provided in section 7 of this act. Following this election,
the intermediate committee shall be dissolved and the requirements of this act shall have
been met and no further plans shall be re-submitted for 5 years by either the state
committee or the intermediate district. .The intermediate district committee shall also be
dissolved on completion and acceptance of the plan by the state committee and the vote or
votes on the plan by the electors of the proposed school district.

-74. "-4..

645 MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES 388.688

388.687 Optional methods of election for adoption of reorganization plans, con-
duct. [M.S.A.15.2299(7)]

Sec. 7. Not less than 90 days nor more than 6 months following approval of an
intermediate district plan as provided in section 6 of this act elections shall be held
according to one of 2 methods. The intermediate district committee shall determine
which election method shall be used.

Method 1. The entire area encompassed by the intermediate district plan shall vote as
a unit on the question: “Shall the approved reorganization plan for the
intermediate district be adopted?

Yes ( i)

No ( l"

If a majority of the qualified electors present and voting approve the plan it shall be
declared adopted and shall become effective throughout the area on the date of the
election if the election is held after April 30 but before September i. The effective date
shall be July 1 following if the election is held after August 31 but before May 1.

Method 2. The proposed districts provided for in the approved plan shall vote by
proposed districts on the question: “Shall the approved reorganization plan for a proposed

local district .......... within the intermediate district of . . . . . be. adopted?
Yes ( l '
No ( "i”

If a majority of the qualified electors present and voting in a proposed district approve
the plan for that proposed district it shall be declared adopted and shall become effective
throughout the proposed district on the date of the election if the election is held after
April 30 but before September 1. The effective date shall be July 1 following if the election
is held.after August 31 but. before May 1.

If election method number 1 is adopted by the intermediate district committee and if the
question voted on fails to obtain an affirmative majority, then another election using
method number 2 shall be held not less than 90 days nor more than 6 months after the (late
of the first election. The results of this election using method number 2 shall be final
and the requirements of this act shall have been met.

If the intermediate district plan provides that the boundaries of an existing school
district shall remain the same such district shall not participate in an election held under
either method number 1 or method number 2.

If the election is held under method number 1, the plan to be Voted on shall not cause
an existing school district to be divided between 2 intermediate districts but property
transfers may he made later according to the provisions of chapter 5. part. 2 of the school
code. The plan may provide for division of districts within an intermediate district.

If and when voting method number 2 is used. the plan shall not cause an existing school
district to be divided between 2 proposed local districts within the intermediate unit. but
property transfers may be made later according to chapter 5, part 2 of the school code.

No property transfers shall be made after the approval of the intermediate district plan
by the state committee until after the elections provided for in this section have been held.

The question of assumption of bonded indebtedness shall not be included in any election
held under the provisions of this act but the provisions of sections 412 and 413 of the school

, code regarding assumption of debt shall apply.

The qualifications of electors shall be the same as now provided in the statutes for votes
on consolidation and annexation and the provisions of the general election laws shall apply.

The board of education of the intermediate school district shall conduct the election or
elections provided for in this section according to the general election laws and according
to chapters 7 and 8 of part 2 of the school code.

388.6888 Classification of districts formed. [M.S.A. 15.2299(8)]

Sec. 8. Districts formed under the provisions of this act shall be classified as second,
third or fourth class districts depending upon the school census as provided for in chapters
3, 4 and 5, part 1 of the school code.

7' fiv—Wfi .. .,.-
‘ '~ ——A.-... m“.-—-...«a——4-,

 

 

1K

01

‘*
—---_._

-fih_--

388.689 GENERAL SCHOOL LAWS: PART III 646-650

388.689 Consolidation, annexation or division of districts. [M.S.A. 15.2299(9)]

Sec. 9. After the effective date of this act, the superintendent of public instruction,
when requested to approve a consolidation, annexation or division of a district, shall give
careful consideration to the progress of the implementation of the requirements of this act.

388.690 School aid, apportionment. [M.S.A. 15.2299(10)]

Sec. 10. School districts formed under the provisions of this act shall be entitled to
and receive financial aid from the state in the manner provided by legislative appropriation
for school aid purposes except that the apportionments of state aid due any school district
formed under this act in the 2 fiscal years next following reorganization shall not be less
than the aggregate of state aid which would have been due preportionately to the component
districts prior to the reorganization. It shall be the duty ofthe superintendent of public
instruction in making apportionments of state aid to adjust the amount of state aid due each
such school district accordingly. ‘

388.691 Board of education of newly—formed district. [M.S.A. 15.2299(11)]

Sec. 11. Where the preposed district involves expansion of the boundaries of an existing
twelveygrade district by addition of non-twelve-grade territory the board of education of the
twelve-grade district shall continue as the board of the enlarged district.

Where the proposed district involves the merger of 2 or more twelve-grade districts
with or without the addition of nonetwelve-grade territory, or where the proposed district
involves merger of non-twelve-grade districts into a new twelve-grade district a board of
education fairly representing all areas of the new district shall be appointed by the inter-
mediate district board to serve until a new board is elected as provided in section 410 of the
school code. '

388.692 Board of education of district losing identity, records, property.
[M.S.A.‘15.2299(12)_]

Sec. 12. The boards of education of any district which lose identity shall turn over their
books, records, funds and property to the new board within 10 days after the effective
date of the reorganization. If any existing district is divided, the intermediate district board,
or boards, shall specify the division of assets and liabilities.

388.693 Final report; termination of act. [M.S.A. 15.2299(13)]
Sec. 13. The state commission shall make a final report to the state legislature on or
before September 1, 1963, and this act shall expire on the date of filing the final report.

L..- —- -- - - " . - -'.- -- c-‘-~-—;.’~_m~m "_."'f‘;7 ,

"to

 

REOR
like is 3!
School Re:

Research
“mm" is be
push for sehue
zation here in
mlightf‘nlngt
trates the t0-

_ pyramiding 0f

pee-conceived
The SPfll‘Ph 1

_ tamed “Mich

my - 19.33”. 1
Fly Report. '.
the Citizens 4"
.-.:a:islutive 11
mo Study (
that Michiga
exits of am
:fat any rea
rsmnerat‘v’ ’.
corernme'nt

real express
tr"

districts.
The Sly F
frhnn‘s

rif‘erenoo ‘f
liai‘iimzz

ublie
'.;i9l\911

4:3]?er l

w

Select!

-0

'l

‘ ‘-
I d

9

p a“'V ‘3' H
l

p
o

THE MICHIGAN

 

CH.

   

. L

 

OBSERVER

(Ofllcial Publication of The Friends of the Michigan Schools)

 

Volume No. 6

Special Reorganization Issue .

Number 3

REORGANIZATION: AIMS AND RESULTS

Who Is Behind

School Reorganization?

Research to find out just
“WHO” is behind the vigorous
push for school district reorgani-
zation here in Michigan was very
enlightening, and clearly illus-
trates the technique of inverted
pyramiding of evidence to support
pee-conceived notions.

The search started with the book
called “Michigan State Aid Sur-
vey - 1953”, sometimes called the
Sly Report. This report, made for
the Citizens Advisory Group to the
Legislative Interim Tax and Reve-
nue Study Committee, suggested
that Michigan had too many small
units of government “which de-
feat any real expression of local
democracy”. These small units of
government “which defeat any
real expression of local democra-
cy” are the townships and school
districts.

The Sly Report, when referring
to schools, used as authority and
reference for such statements the
following: A book called “Paying
for Public Schools in Michigan”,
published at the University of
Michigan in 19:31 by the Bureau of

(continued on page 4)

School Consolidation
MERGER BY NAKED FORCE

Legislation fostered by the State
Department -of Public. Instruction
will be introduced this year at
Harrisburg to compel the 2277
school districts of the Common-
wealth to merge into 172 districts,
of which 8 will be in Montgomery
County.

The customary drums are being
beaten, th e usual “Citizens”
groups will be formed, the old
promises of “efficiency” and “e~
eononiy” will be made and heavy
pressure will be brought upon

(continued on page 2)

One State-Wide
School District

This radical proposal was the
substance. of a trial balloon thrown
out by Octavius Townsend, presi-
dent-elect of the Michigan Educa-
tion Association. To make it more
or less official E. Dale Kennedy,
executive. secretary of the M.E,A.
was also present at this news con-
ference held at Michigan State
University Union Building. We

‘ (continued on page 2)

 

 

 

Selected Data for fllchigan’s 535 lllgh School Dlstrlcts, l962-63
complled by Department of Publlc lnstructlon

School Enrollment

Education Cost per Student

1000 — $327.16—

 

2500 _ 341.08—
4500 _— 38610—-

 

--.. .___. _.__.

 

7500-]..- 4133.86”

 

-m-mau --.---..--—...- on.

15,000 M 414.91”

 

35,000 win-— 464.47_

 

Dormitories In
the Schools

THE COMMISSIONER PREDIOTS

Speaking before a grOUp of Nas-
sau County teachers and adminis-
trators, Commissioner of Educa-
tion James E. Allen, Jr., New
York, predicted sweeping changes
in schools by the end of the cen-
tury. He predicted that by the year
2000 children will

0 Enter school at two or three
years of age
live part of each week in
schools containing bedrooms as
well as classrooms

0 Attend schools geared to their
educational needs and interest.
rather than schools in their
own districts.

Noting that “education is 8 vi-
tal national concern and the time
has come to do more than merely
say so,” he said the State cannot
afford to let lagging school dis-
tricts continue to lag. “Schools are
no longer purely local in charac-
ter," he added.
from N. Y. lellc School Iloard Assn.
Edit. Note: Project “Head Start" is
the beginning of the program to en-
roll kids at two and three years of
age. .

In reply to an article taken from
the Michigan School Board Jour-
nal: In this article Commissioner
of Education James E. Allen of
New York predicts that in the not
too distant future, your child will
be taken from his home when two
or three years of age and placed in
a school dormitory, which might
be in some other district rather
than his own. In other words he
would have a bedroom on well as a
classroom and his education would
actrally begin at the tender age. of

. (continued on page 3)

Page 2

 

rm: Mice

SCI

Volume N“

 

 

I3

 

Editorial

Pot]

liver since th
‘ho social Dlim
through contra
their prong
{sinking of on
in THE SOC]
\eorgauizat
1. With eV
citizen is redo
can. T eday w
was introdue
Supt. of Pub'
talking of a. l
‘3. Childrel
not unusual ‘
light in the ‘
3. The sel
.t-ss kuowlet'
:1. \Villt l
vanished, \\'
The tremen
result of th
flarization i
problem in

0. The c

(.33

Page 2 The Michigan School Observer

THE MICHIGAN

TSCHOOL OBSERVER

Number .‘2

 

 

 

 

Volume No. 6 Special Reorganization Issue

EDITOR
Miss Edna Conkliu

2‘30 N. Cochran, Charlotte, Mich. 48813

Friends of Michigan Schools
Box 1151, Lansing, Michigan 48904

 

 

Editorial

Purposes of Reorganization

Ever since the Socialist movement started in 1.905 in the United States
the social planners havi: been graduallv gaining control of education
through centralization Reorganization of school districts is a key part
of their program, because the group that controls education direct ts the
thinking of our future leaders.

TO THE SOCIALIST

Reorganization is imperative for the following reasons:

1. With every school district that is cli1ninatcd, the 1ntluence of the
citizen is reduced. At one time there were 7200 school districts in Michi-
gan. Today we are getting down near the 1000 mark. Last year a bill
was introduced to reduce the 500 in the reorganization act to 400. The
Supt. of Public Instruction recommends 300. Privately, the planners are
talking of a few regional districts for the state.

2. Children are away from the home influence longer each day. It is
not unusual to find small children getting on a school has before day-
light in the winter months and home after dark in the evening:

3. The school is further removed from home so the parents will have
less knowledge of what is going on.

4. With the school gone the most. important community center has
vanished. When the community spirit deteriorates, moral values decline.
The tremendous increase in juvenile delinquency and teenage crime is a
result of this moral breakdown of the home and connnunity. School reor-
ganzation is certainly one of the contributing factors to our present
problem in this min.

5. The Opportunity for a student to develop leadership in diminished.
(Sec letter to editor, page 3) -

6. The bigger the district, the higher the cost of educating e ch child.
(See graph on page one.) Reorganization has resulted in a tremendous
increase in taxes. Many rural areas have experienced 200 t'o 300% in-
crease a few years after annexation. City residents have not escaped
either. Recently in a news article the Supt. of the Alpena Schools (only
county-wide district in Michigan) admitted that school taxes in the city
of Alpena have nearly tripled.

To the Socialist, who believes in government ownership of all proper-
ty, excessive taxation is the civilized way to appropriate it.

-—IIarmon Cropscy, President

 

For those who went further information, the book Turning the Tides
by Shafcr and Snow is recommended. Get it from your local bookstore,
lib1ary, or order from Friends of Michigan Schools, Box 1151, Lansing,
Mich. $2. 00 postpaid.

 

ONE STATE - WIDE SCHOOL
(continued from page 1 ‘1
quote part of the news item which
appeared in the April 26, 1963, is-

sue of the Lansing Journal.
Links School Financing to
One State District

“The president-elect of the. Mich-a

igan Education Association said

Friday he believes the only solu-
tion to financing of public schools
in the future may be a single, state-
wide school distriet controlled by
the state.

“This view was expressed by De-
tavius Townsend of Ishpeming
during a press conference at the
Michigan State University Union

Special Reorganization Issue

Ii uilding

“To“ mend said he could see no
likelihood of such a plan being ap-
proved in the immediate future be-
cause of various conflicts of a po~
litieal nature and resistance a-
mong individual school districts.
ASSURE EDUCATION

“But be emphasized that such a
plan Would provide the right to an
equal education to all youngsters
in Michigan and help eliminate
the areas where inadequate school
programs are in effect due. to lack
of funds.

“In response to questions, Town-
send said such a district under
state control would mean parcel-
i'ng out state tax funds to areas
where they are most needed in the
state and not necessarily in equal
amounts.

“Townsend said this was a per-
sonal view and no details have.
been \vorked out. ’nlt he added
that in his view, legislation could
be passed permitting various areas
to vote extra taxes beyond what
the state provided if they chose to
do so. "

Friends of Michigan Schools
have always contended that the
“progressive educationists” want.-
ed completely centralized control
of Schools. (inc stale-wide school
district controlled completely by
Lansing or \Vashingtou or perhaps
New York is their idea of “democ-
racy”. They want. no interference
from anyone in carrying out their
plans.

Actually a dictatorship such as
posed, plus more, funds which they
always want, would leave the edu-
cationists free. Free to do what?

I‘
‘1

SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION

(continued from page 1)

teachers, school administrators
and school board members to make
them pass resolutions of approval
which will then be broadcast far .
and wide at the taxpayers’ ex-
pense.

The plan has been going on un-
der cover for a long time, but it is
now out in the open where it can
be fought. lindcr the plan, the lo-
cal school districts will be given a
few years to merge into the de-
sired units “voluntarily.” If they
refuse, they will be forced into
them involuntarily.

This plan is the greatest threat
to democratic self-government
that. has ever been proposed in

(continued on page 3)

Special more

—-——._'—"

letter to

Sense 01 “if
lost In 8'8

Statements n
the to the K-1
revamping of h
have been, to.
fillv lacking 11"
or. in issue of '
to students. I

Amaim‘ 03“
on crime :1ch
pie-university :
frustratmn. 11111
bitty in their 1
rodents of ti
schools. great 1
(a achievement.
Failure to find
isoiten a cat;
youthful self-cs
to achieve. a r
areas of import
hails students t.
it. and search f
side of school
iitcn. outside t

la :mr prose-r1

”m there are
“until. in lheSe
thatchhig for :
lution. and ct
ilC units are $1
ing these Pfdt
character. Tal
Han and subs
"-sult will he
ence and a va
1itisintcrest an

.2: ,a hand, on
only l

 

 

llll‘t‘. So
al team so 1
that govcrium

t. e peopl
unravagantai
hilly them int

c Sure the-
not the least
enormous tax
rapidly inct
tnminals and

D

l

SCHOOL CO
(contim
’ennsylvaoi
Tllt‘ local c"

ls to be con‘;

and contra
Ostere

‘ (l on:
gumm

W

'h'
ll t 1s a
mac Rule

Special Reorganization Issue

The Michigan School Observer

Page 3

 

letter to the Editor

Sense of Achievement
lost In Big Schools

Statements made recently rela-
tive to the K-12 proposal for the
revamping of local school districts
have been, to my thinking, woe.
fully lacking in putting emphasis
on an issue of critical importance
to students. ‘ .

A major cause of delinquency
and crime among students of the.
pro-university age, is a feeling of
frustration, impotence, and infer-
iority in their dealings with other
students of their age. In our
schools, great emphasis is placed
on achievement within the group.
Failure to find that achievement
is often a catastrophic blow to
youthful self-esteem. This failure
to achieve a relative success in
areas of importance to the group,
leads students to condemn that un-
it, and search for importance out-
side of school activities and, too
often, outside the law.

in our present. county school sys-
tem there are. many small school
units. in these units students are
searching for achiwemcnt, recog-
nition, and confidence. Because
the units are small, many are. find-
ing these crucial foundations of
character. Take away the small
unit and substitute K-]2 and the
result will be a minority of excel-
knee and a vast preponderance of
disinterest and discontent. After
oil, a hand, orchestra, or choir can
only have so many members, a
hall team so many players, a stu-
dent government so many officials.

If the people of Michigan let an
extravagant-minded legislature
bully them into K-li.’ consolidation,
it believe they will have regrets,
not the least of which will be an
enormous tax burden to cope with

rapidly increasing numbers of
criminals and malcontents.
DOUGLAS \VOLFE.
15 W. Fayette St.
Ilillsdale.

 

SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION
(continued from page 2 l

Pennsylvania. At one fell swoop,
true local control over the schools
is to be contemptuously destroyed,
local control that has guided and
fostered our schools since the be-
ginning.

lt is a cardinal principle of
Home Rule that those who are

sought to be merged must give
their consent to the merger. In-
deed, a cardinal principle of our
Nation is “Government with the
consent of the governed.”

\Ve should look with pity on
these “experts” for in their blind
worship of bigness they are seek-
ing to tear down the pillars of the

_Templc of Liberty. They would

herd the children into great educa-
tional factorieS. They would des-
troy whar little control the parents
have over what is taught and who
teaches. They would reduce the in-
dividual—-so far as is possible—in-
to the mass.

Both our Montgomery County
Boroughs Association and our
State Association of Boroughs
have gone on record for some
years against such a proposal.
\Vhat we realize is that if the
school districts can be cavalierly
merged without the consent of
the voters, it will be only a short
time before the Planners will en-
deavor to compel us to merge into
the large units of government —
without the consent of the voters.

This nation was founded and
grew strong because men fought.
for the right to govern them-
selves. The strength of democracy
has always been the participation
of the citizens. \Vherc an issue is
close to men's hearts they strive
vigorously to maintain it, but
when it is far removed, indiffer-
ence and passive unconcern take
over. This is the great curse of
centralized government and of
units too big for the individual
opinion to count.

Voluntary merger is,an accept-
able prlnciple, but forced merger

, is repugnant to every right-think-

ing man. It must be fought when-
ever it rears its head.
-—Pennsylvania Twp. News

DORMITORIES IN THE
(continued from page 1)

two or three years. The school term

would also be. lengthened, Mr

Allen says, “Schools are no longer

purely local in character.”

Since Mr. Allen sets himself up
as an authority. it would be inter.
esting, indeed, to find out how the
schools under his jurisdiction are
actually getting along at the pres—
ent time.

A recent article written by one
of his teachers and appearing in
the September, 1962, issue of the
Atlantic Monthly presents a rather

disturbing picture of New York
schools. The teacher says, and l
quote, “It is pure fiction to say
that what takes place in some New
York schools is education, and to
assert that it is education which
takes place in a great many of the.
so-called better neighborhood
schools of New York is equally
fictitious. I spent my three years
of high school teaching in what is
generally regarded as the best
schools.”

It is not unusual to walk into a.

'classromn and bear eighth graders

reading at a fourth grade level.
“'hen beginning a class period, it
often takes at, least ten minutes to
gain even a semblance of order.
Often the whole forty minute peri-
od is spent in trying to achieve
discipline.

He states further: “I was not
very surprised when the attend-
auee officer at one Junior High
with whom I was having lunch one.
day told me that with the school
year less than three months old,
the twentieth pregnancy among
the student body of twelve to four-
teen year olds had been discover-
ed.” He said, "There is a cop on
continuous duty and no girl may
leave the room unless accompan-
ied by another girl.”

All in all, it would seem that.
Commissioner Allen is not in a.
very logical position to give ad-
vice. And yet these are the very
people, and we have them right in
Michigan, who are advocating cen-
tralized control of our schools.

Conditions in Washington, D. (3.
schools seem, if possible, to be even
ivorse.

The following are excerpts from
the January 21, 1963, issue of U. S.
News and \Vorld Report taken
from an article relative to the,
schools of our U. S. Capitol:

“Fear rages through many school
buildings, Violence, assaults, dis-
respect. for teachers are undesir-
able acts of students. Teachers
have become hopeless in the strug-
gle. Some are attempting to hang
on until they can retire. Many have,
given up the fight.”

Not nnsnal are organized ex-
tortion gangs where older boys
forceably take lunch money from
younger boys and girls, stealing of
clothing, radios. books, molesting
students in corridors and threats
of violence. Teachers and school
officials are slow to report. these.

(continued on page 4)

 

Schools V5

We favor 1008
ration which can
plished by r911
school districts ‘
state.

We believe a!
should be (held?
knowlcdgoable ‘
tithe districts
pose a dictate
whether by (1
through cocrciox

We favor log:
guarantee the I
Ins in make tl‘
provide the me
them to have 1
v‘istrict they wu

We favor kc
“:hools as 0103
flossiblc. Parent
wet relation ti
‘hc school to ti
atmosphere. St
complete educa
{If the child, ca
“y the use of
dormitories as
rdncatom,
“For “mm in
imnds ”if Mic
if“: 1101,1131“

Chao;

.lfndcr P,
Hon Bill) ag

loture in 1964
3’- milla

J

Page 4

”U

The Michigan School Observer

Special Reorganization Issue

 

fiends of Michigan
Schools Viewnoint

\Ve favor local control of edu-
cation which can only be. accom-
plished by retaining as many
school districts as possible in the
state.

We believe any reorganization
should be decided by the free and
knowledgeable vote of the people
, of the districts involved. We op-
pose a dictated reorganization
whether by direct order or
through coercion.

We favor legislation which will
guarantee the right of local citi-
zens to make these decisions and
provide the machinery to enable
them to have the type of school
district. they want.

\Vc favor keeping children in
schools as close to their home as
possible. Parental interest is in di-
rect relation to the proximity of
the school to the home. The home
atmosphere, so essential to the
complete educational development
of the child, can never be replaced
by the use of house mothers and

dormitories as proposed by some ,

educators.

For more. information about the
Friends of Michigan Schools write
Box 115], Lansing.

Chaos Ahead

Under P. A. 289 (Reorganiza-
tion Bill) as passed by the legis-
lature in 1964, all extra operation-
al millages cease if the plans are
approved. If the. election is in An.
gush/the plan goes into immedi-
ate effect. There would not be suf-
ficient time to set up an election
before the September 15 deadline
for certifying millage. Unless the
hill is amended or the law is
changed. some new districts will
be operating under extreme finan-
cial distress.

 

 

Seven Steps In
Reorganization

1. Township elementary districts
2. High school district
3. Combine two or more high
chool districts
4. (fouutyavide district
ti. Regional (several counties)- -
recommended by Dr. Bartlett, for-
mer Supt. of Public Instruction

6. State-wide- -rccommended by
Octavius Townsend when he was
president of MBA as the best way
to equalize educational opportuni-
ties

7. Natiomvide--through strings
attached to Federal Aid
Note: Many times some steps are
by-passcd.

DORMITORIES IN THE
( continued from page 3)
disturbances for fear of reprisals.
Many serious offenses never ap-
pear in the press. '
The undesirable conditions just

 

mentioned. are not isolated cases.

Do you wish to have your child
subjected to influences
your control such as those JllSt
mentioned? If not. do not listen to
those who are trying dcspcrtely to
deprive you of any and all voice in
school affairs.

WHO IS BEHIND SCHOOL
(continued from page 1)
Government, Institute of Public
Administration; and another book
called “The Forty-Eight State
School Systems”, published in
1949 by the Council of State Gov-
ernments, l3l3 E. Sixticth Street,

Chicago, Illinois.
Examination of these two books

 

'shows that both of them empha-

size the idea of school district re-
organization, but again, like the
first book, not on the basis of re-
search and factual findings, but
using as their authority still an-
other book.

It is with this last book that we
come to the bottom of the inverted
pyramid. The. title of. the. book is
“ Your School District” and it. was

published in 1948 by THE NAT-

IONAL . EDUCATION ASSOCI-
ATION. Here, at last, is the real
“VVIIO” behind school district rc-
organization.

The first sentence of this book is

THE MICHIGAN
SCHOOL OBSERVER
Box 1151
Lansing. Michigan 48904

Occupant
Postal Patron. Local

beyond '

as follows - - “School district re—
organization is imperative.” The
rest of the book is simply a well
organized effort to sell the reader
on the conclusion already reached
in the first sentence. It is full of
talk about “educational opportun-
ities,” “administrative units” and
all the rest of the favorite phrases
of the ‘Progrcssivc Educator”, all
designed to further the original
pro-conceived notion that school
district reorganization is neces-
sary. Finding the “ WHO” behind
the reorganization movement
would be gratifying if it weren’t
for the fact that the propaganda
started in this book has spread Up-
ward through the years and found
its way into the so called factual
reports upon which the present
day arguments are based.

We, the parents of the children
whose education is affected, are
supposed to reconcile ourselves to
the idea that only the “professiom
al educators” have the knowledge
or ability to form correct opinions
about the education of our chil-
dren. We, the parentstare unin-
formed laymen. The sad fact of
the matter is that these “profes-
sionals” have. sunk so deeply into
the lodless, socialistic mire stirred
up by John Dewey, George Counts,
IIarold Rugg and others of similar
beliefs, that to accept. their “pro-
fessional opinions” at face value is
to be naive indeed.

School district reorganization is
imperative - - for those who would
impose socialism upon us - - in or-
der to gain effective control of our
schools. It is through the schools
that their “new education”, with
its lack of moral or spiritual val-
ues can be spread like poison
through our communities. THE
TIME TO STOP IT IS RIGHT
NOW.

~~lny Research Committco
Cass (70. Chapter EMS.

AA-‘A‘AAA‘A-AAAA-“
'vvvvvvvvvvvv'vvvvv

: Non-Profit Org.
i 13qu Rate
E U. S. Postage
; 1’ A I D
l
t
l
D

 

PBS-MT NO. 697
Lansing, Mich.

A“AA“AAAAAAAA‘AAAA
'w'vvvvvvvv'vvvvvvv

-. _A A‘A ‘-- A
AA-A--AA‘A“‘-
vvvv'vv'vvvvvv

 

 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION .....................

Lansing, Michigan 48902 THOMA: LUBRENNAN
'93] ("I

LEON FILL, M.D.
Vice President

JUlY 11: 1966 suwuvL.Novax,on.

IRA POLLEY Secretary
Superintendent of Public Instruction

 

CHARLES MORTON
Treasurer

CARMEN L. DELLIQUADRI
MARILYN JEAN KELLY
PETER OPPEWALL
DONALD M. D. THURBER

GOV. GEORGE ROMNEY,
Ex-Oflicio

E. O. Schroeder contacted you in 1964 to request school district
reorganization information concerning your state. This is a
follow-up of that request. we would appreciate it very much if
you would send us a copy or description of legislation pertaining
to school district reorganization that has become effective in your
state since 196A.

Would you also send a current summary of the number of your school
districts.

Sincerely,

20W Boline, Consultant

Adm nistrative Services

RAB/gr

nIcuxan smTE UNIV. LIBRARIES
\llWNW“!HlWWWW‘IINI‘IIHIWWI
31293102172842