This report is part of the series of publications that have been
written about reorganization since 1980. Every year one or more reports are produced that
summarize and analyze current reorganization activities and address special topics about
school consolidation.
Since 1985, 83 school districts have closed their high schools, and all except one made
the determination to do so at the local level. In the vast majority of instances the
school boards first entered into whole-grade sharing agreements with neighboring schools.
Whole-grade sharing is a local board of director approved contract to send all students in
one or more grades to another district, and all contracts to this point involve at least
the high school. Most partnerships are two way sharing arrangements where both districts
send students to the other. For example, a common form of sharing is for one district to
operate the high school and the other run the middle school. In 1994-95, 354 districts
will be operating high schools within their boundaries. There were 437 districts running
their own high schools in 1984-85.
Since 1985, the number of school districts has declined by 48. In 1984-85 there were 438
districts, and in 1994-95 there are 390. The reduction includes 46 reorganizations, one
dissolution, and one failure to meet standards. With a few exceptions the reorganizations
first involved several years of whole-grade sharing.
In summary, there were 438 districts in 1984-85, and 437 of them had their own high
schools. In 1994-95 there are 390 districts, and 354 are operating high schools. The
difference between 390 and 354 is the number of whole-grade sharing districts that are
sending high school students elsewhere.
The movement which began in 1985 is still continuing. Two reorganization elections have
already passed for July 1, 1995, effective dates, and several more hearings and elections
are pending. The 1994-95 school year is beginning with eight more districts operating
under new whole-grade sharing agreements.
Reorganization and Litigation
There can be little doubt that the school districts of Iowa are in the midst of a major
reorganization era and that this is the third such period since 1900. This phase, which
began in 1985, can be characterized in general terms as a government business movement. It
is similar to, and a part of, the many economic and business changes we have experienced
in our state. However, one feature that distinguishes the merging of school districts from
other business transformations is the political element. Reorganization and whole-grade
sharing are almost certain to bring out emotional issues.
Considering the often highly charged personal elements, it is surprising that local school
boards and citizens have been able to put together the school district combinations with
very little litigation. This is unlike the consolidation that took place during the 1950s
and early 1960s. That approximately 10 year period prompted numerous court cases and
provided the media with more than an adequate amount of exciting news to report.
The major purpose of this article is to point out the factors that are seemingly keeping
the merging activities at a business and professional level and that are allowing the
process to take place without the need for resorting to legal measures to resolve
disputes. The vast majority of the credit should go to the school boards. There are three
common types of actions that seem to be keeping litigious controversy from arising:
Boards have been making thorough studies before signing whole-grade sharing agreements or
starting the reorganization process. The studies usually involve citizens committees, the
Department of Education, or other third parties. In almost all cases the boards have been
able to take more than enough time to work on the studies.
The boards' whole-grade sharing processes, from inception of the ideas through signing of
the contracts, have been completely open to the public. Boards of directors have involved
citizens, sought their input, and kept them informed. The boards have similarly included
the public in their reorganization planning. The final determination to reorganize is up
to the voters; whereas, whole-grade sharing is within the authority of the school boards.
Early in the study process, and before the decision making is underway, boards have
engaged legal counsel. Since the reorganization era began in 1985 several attorneys have
become proficient in the intricacies of whole-grade sharing and reorganization.
School boards and other school officials are strongly urged to completely buy into the
three above concepts. This consultant firmly believes that scores of school boards have
clearly demonstrated the proper ways to deal with extremely tough topics. They have been
able to blend the many elements that come together as democratic institutions balance the
needs for change with the strengths of tradition and stability. If more work or time are
required to guide the desired actions, both pro and con, that seems to be a small price to
pay.
In-spite of the care taken by school officials, some litigation has still taken place. The
actions include declaratory rulings, appeals to the State Board of Education, attorney
general opinions, Public Employment Relations Board rulings, contest court actions, and
district court or supreme court decisions. Although some processes, such as declaratory
rulings, may not always arise from controversy, they do clarify points of law.
There is no central repository of information about all of the legal actions that relate
to the school merger topic. This consultant has made extra efforts to monitor legal
activities, but it is important to note that some actions may have taken place that are
not known to Department of Education staff.
The only common form of contention during this nine year period of time has been appeals
to the State Board of Education. The other mechanisms have been limited to one or two
actions each. For example, this consultant is aware of only one PERB decision directly
related to sharing, and that was not even whole-grade sharing.
From an overview examination, the legal problems can be categorized into those related to
reorganization, whole-grade sharing and financial incentives:
For purposes of this report, financial incentive altercations were not scrutinized. The
financial incentives, as they relate to whole-grade sharing and reorganization, do not
directly impinge upon the process of enacting mergers or sharing. They merely provide
added funding or tax breaks for a period of time after the sharing or consolidation.
The requests for declaratory rulings, and even a court case that is now before the Supreme
Court, could theoretically be related to any other financial program that provides extra
funding. The disagreements were not between the school boards and their citizens, but
rather between the local districts and the Department of Education's interpretation of
sections of the Code of Iowa--specifically finance portions. Even more specifically, the
problems involved parts of the Code that give added funding to districts for either
sharing or reorganizing. In none of the situations did the dispute affect the outcome to
reorganize or share.
Very few of the litigious cases involved reorganization. The Code is reasonably
prescriptive about the process to be followed, and a substantial amount of common law was
developed during the 1950s and 1960s. Reorganization involves three distinct sets of
actions.
The first is the development, circulation, and submission of the petition to reorganize.
Those factors have not given rise to contention. The contents of the reorganization
petitions are straightforward, and the attorneys working with consolidation are able to
handle this with dispatch. The only problem that once-in-a-while crops up is the adequacy
of the number of qualified electors signing the petition, and so far this has not been a
barrier.
The second area of activity revolves around the reorganization hearing and other steps
taken by the area education agencies. During this period the Southern Prairie AEA-15
decision to authorize a reorganization election requested by Hedrick citizens went all the
way to the Supreme Court, and the court reaffirmed its long-standing position that Chapter
275 (the reorganization chapter) is to be construed liberally. In ordinary terms, this
means that reorganization should be brought to an election without "nitpicking"
getting in the way. The issue did go to an election as ordered, but it eventually failed
at the ballot box.
Regarding the election portion of the reorganization process, one protest was launched
against the election results. Some Clarence-Lowden citizens appealed the results of an
election to a contest court. The election resulted in a simple positive majority in both
districts, which is required for a reorganization. The contest court upheld those results,
and the districts will be reorganized as of July 1, 1995.
According to information derived from monitoring the reorganization process between 1985
and now, and from special research for this article, this consultant did not uncover
examples of declaratory rulings, appeals to the state board, attorney general opinions, or
PERB rulings that related directly to the reorganization action. One attorney general
opinion and a request for a declaratory ruling asked for clarification of the school board
election process that follows a reorganization. However, the limited amount of litigation
that did take place did not lead toward new common law nor provide for different inroads
into application of the Code of Iowa.
On the other hand, litigation involving whole-grade sharing has produced explanations of
the Code. During the early years of whole-grade sharing, which began in 1985, there were
six appeals to the State Board challenging the local boards' abilities to enter into
whole-grade sharing. The first case in 1985, involving the Grand Community School
District, upheld the local board's decision to whole-grade share with Ogden. At that time
the term "whole-grade sharing" was not yet in general use and had not been
codified. Then within a few years six more appeals came to the State Board. Five local
board decisions to whole-grade share were upheld and the Irwin board's decision was
overturned. That board subsequently corrected its actions and then signed a whole-grade
sharing agreement.
In 1987, the Legislature put into law several sections that define whole-grade sharing and
establish procedures for boards to follow. Some of the seven cases that were heard between
1985 and 1988 came before that law and some after. Then in 1992 the United Community
School District's decision to enter into a multiple form of whole-grade sharing was
appealed, and the State board again upheld the district's decision to whole-grade share.
Some of the disputes included the choices of partners. However, choice of partner may or
may not have been the true motivational issue. Appellants often throw in a long list of
grievances, hoping to score on one of them, and the naming of another district as a better
partner just adds to the list.
Another type of challenge was presented regarding New Market's determination to rescind a
whole-grade sharing contract before the agreement's term expired. The State Board did not
move its decision into the contract law topic, but it did impose the same general
standards on deleting contracts that are expected for developing contracts. In other words
there have to be notifications, hearings, etc. The New Market board was not allowed to
back out of the contract with Clarinda.
In the earlier stages of whole-grade sharing the choice of a different attendance center
was frequently an appeal subject. Parents of students who lived around the periphery of a
district that will be entering into sharing often asked to have their children sent to
another neighboring district. Some requests were granted and others were denied. Open
enrollment has made this a lesser issue.
Attempts to receive assistance for resolving disputes, or for gaining clarification,
concerning whole-grade sharing have been almost exclusively limited to the State Board
appeal process. The Department of Education, through its rulings, has chosen to leave the
decision making process to the local boards of directors. The State Board has not forced,
nor has it covertly pushed, districts into whole-grade sharing.
However, the State Board has clearly and consistently given the message to local boards of
directors and citizens that it believes local boards owe to their "students and
citizens the duty of a well-researched study and the courtesy of receiving public comment
prior to reaching a decision." The evidence is clear that boards have been meeting
this expectation. (Written by Guy Ghan, Retired DE Consultant)
Feedback:
Periodic Reports Comments