Periodic Reports
School District Reorganization Report
July 1995

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. This particular issue includes information about the possible era of school reorganization coming to an end and a study conducted by researchers from Iowa State University.

Is The Era At An End?

In the January, 1988 version of this reorganization report, I wrote that, "....the restructuring movement, like all other historical movements, could run its course. Very possibly, 1995 might be the year for change, with a plateau starting at that time." Conditions that have recently developed may be indicating that the prophesy is correct. This narrative examines the past ten year period of school consolidation and its eventual cessation.

Characteristics of Era

This period of school district merging began rather abruptly with the 1985-86 school year. In the prior year there were only two districts engaged in what became to be known as whole-grade sharing. In that partnership Corwith-Wesley sent its junior high students to Lu Verne, and Lu Verne sent its high school students to Corwith-Wesley. Then in 1985-86 the number of whole-grade sharing districts jumped to 10, the following year it went to 20, and the trend continued upward. In all, approximately 170 districts have entered into these large-scale sharing contracts since 1985. The pattern has been very steady, with very few reversals.

Whole-grade sharing has clearly been leading toward reorganization. As of now, approximately two-thirds of the whole-grade sharing districts have officially consolidated. Along with the movement to whole-grade sharing, then to reorganization, there have been patterns of superintendent sharing and less massive sharing preceding the large-scale partnerships. In other words, the period has been characterized as one of moderate sharing, followed by whole-grade sharing contracts enacted by school boards, and then reorganizations voted upon by the citizens.

Signals of the End

As of the date this report is being written, one reorganization passed for a July 1, 1996, effective date, and four more reorganization petitions have been submitted to the respective area education agencies by eight districts. Also, six new districts were formed on July 1, 1995. On July 1, 1994, 14 districts reorganized, 41 merged the prior year, and 14 the year prior to that. To some observers, this may not seem to be a cessation of activity. However, it is important to note that of the districts that consolidated this year, only two had not been whole-grade sharing prior to the merger. In fact, of the 91 districts that voted to reorganize for effective dates from 1990 through 1995, only four involved districts that had not been already whole-grade sharing. This consultant's contention has been that the entry into whole-grade sharing, not the reorganization that follows, is the critical action.

As noted earlier, the whole-grade sharing movement began with the 1985-86 year, and after that first year, and through 1992-93, there were never fewer than 10 schools added to the list in any given year. Six times the number of whole-grade sharing districts increased by more than 20, and in 1989-90 the expansion involved 30 districts.

The signal for a slow-down came in 1993-94, with only nine districts being added to the whole-grade sharing list, and in 1994-95, with only eight new districts. For the school year we that are now in, 1995-96, only one new school entered into a whole-grade sharing contract. The Titonka district broke away from the triple partnership with Buffalo Center-Rake-Lakota, and Thompson, and it joined the newcomer, Woden-Crystal Lake. The last three years, and 1995-96 in particular, present a break in the pattern.

Another significant indication of change is the reduction in the number of districts studying whole-grade sharing or examining reorganization if they have not been whole-grade sharing. Since districts can conduct feasibility studies on their own, and a few have used university staff or other neutral research people, it is not possible to know about all districts that are reviewing reorganization options. However, since most districts engage the Department of Education for the consultations and study, we are able to take a good reading about what districts are doing.

Of the 275 reorganization studies and consultations that have been conducted by the Department of Education since 1980, all but two or three were done by this consultant singly, or in partnership with another staff member. These contacts with 266 different school districts have provided the Department with a wealth of information about the reorganization movement. Many schools have requested two, three, and even more separate studies over the years. One of the hallmarks of this movement has been for districts and boards to completely examine the issues before making their long-lasting decisions.

Prior to 1987 this consultant conducted an average of 2.5 studies per year, along with other assigned duties. Then suddenly, beginning with 1987, the average climbed to almost 30 per year. The other duties were largely put on hold, and almost full-time was devoted to reorganization and whole-grade sharing activities through May of 1995.

Never, since January, 1987, has this consultant been caught up with the study requests. At times there have been as many as 10 studies scheduled, and some schools have had to wait as long as six months. The studies and consultations have positively mirrored the reorganization and whole-grade sharing actions of school boards and their school districts. The study activities have been excellent predictors of what will take place.

Thus far, 16 studies have been conducted during the 1995 calendar year. However, in the middle of May, 1995, this consultant was caught up for the first time since the beginning of 1987. This would seem to be a notable indicator of the reorganization condition in the state.

Another evidence of change came two years earlier. From 1987 through 1992, almost all of the studies required on-site visits and public meetings with the school boards. Although the pace of requests for studies did not abate, the need for visits slowed to approximately one per month in 1993. Of the 148 district contacts during this past two and one-half year period, only 30 involved first time school districts. In other words, it was possible to do desk studies. The significance of this is that the number of districts looking at reorganization or whole-grade sharing for the first time has slowed to a snail's pace.

Early in the era of reorganization, some people refused to believe that a major shift was in the making. However, the evidence supporting the age of consolidation proved to be correct. Does the current very low level of new whole-grade sharing agreements and the cessation of the requests for studies indicate the end of the era? These recent changes seem to be very significant!

Review of Government Actions

In order to better answer the above question, it may be necessary to look at a few more conditions. The first analysis is of the actions of the governments involved.
Two levels of government have been involved in this ten year process of school merger--local boards of education and state government. The state involvement mostly includes actions associated with the annual legislative process.

If not 100, probably more than 200, times this consultant has told board members, administrators, and gatherings of citizens that school reorganizations in this period involve local control. Whole-grade sharing requires the decisions of the boards, and reorganization necessitates elections. Boards have spent literally thousands of hours studying the topic, and they have been including their citizens every step of the way. Even if the Department of Education conducts a study for the boards, this consultant still points to the condition that the state is not mandating the mergers.

The state involvement seems to have come from three directions--the new minimum standards in the mid-1980s, financial incentives, and general finances. The first two may have encouraged local decisions, and the third has gone both ways.

In the mid-1980s the legislature mandated the development of new minimum educational standards. For example, the minimum number of high school units was increased, such as requiring six year-long math courses instead of five. The standards were phased in over a period of a few years, and some initially set requisites were eventually backed out. It is not possible to determine how much this influenced the local decision making process, but it certainly caused those who want to be at levels higher than the minimums to take close looks at their programs. On the other hand, there still are a few very small school districts with less than 300, or even 200, students in all grades, and they are meeting the minimum standards without whole-grade sharing.

The state has offered financial incentives for sharing, for many years. In the mid-1980s additional incentives were added for whole-grade sharing, administrator/superintendent sharing, and reorganization. Most of the incentives had five year time limitations, and they were eliminated for new participants in the early 1990s. Although the incentives may have encouraged boards and citizens to make the choices to join their schools, such actions were voluntary.

The general finance conditions imposed on schools may have caused some smaller districts to become larger through mergers in order to obtain a more efficient level of volume. However, the finance formula still tends to favor many of the smaller districts. When examining the per pupil spending levels, it is clear that not all small schools are expensive, but all expensive schools are small.

The legislated actions that have had effects on school reorganization were much more indirect than direct. Now, concerning the possible end of the era of change, the standards have had several years to "sink in," and the incentives are gone. Recent legislation, such as the 101 percent guarantee, have helped smaller districts.

Societal Causes

On numerous occasions this consultant has likened this school consolidation era to the other changes that are taking place in Iowa. My conclusion is that schools are subject to many of the same economic pressures that have caused farms to become larger, for retail services to dramatically consolidate into larger communities, and for the populations to shift from the rural areas.

Government adjustments to these changing conditions never seem to be steady. In other words, the continuous crunch of the profit motive causes private enterprise to react more quickly and steadily. The local government changes take place after some delay and in spurts of activity.

At one time Iowa had considerably more than 10,000 schools dotting the country-side. Most of them were one room schoolhouses, and they are gone now. In the early 1930s there were 937 high school districts--almost one per town. That number is now a little more than one-third of what it used to be. An important point is that the shrinking in the number of schools took place during three periods of time.

The first movement, called the Consolidated School Movement occurred between 1900 and 1922. The vast majority of the action was in a ten year period after 1910.

The second epoch was called the Community School Movement, and it took place between 1953 and 1966. This two part era saw the complete elimination of the rural elementary districts and a shrinking of the number of high schools. Almost all of the high school eliminations happened in a ten year period that ended in 1962.

As stated early in this article, the current era began in 1985. After 10 years, did it end in 1995?

In 1995-96 there are 31 districts without high schools in their boundaries, and they are providing high school programs through whole-grade sharing. The gradual movement of these districts to reorganization would not seem to be major actions. Locally, such alterations may be perceived as significant, but from a total statewide perspective, they are more easily classified as "wrapping-up" actions.

Some smaller districts that fall within the size range of those that have been consolidating, have survived. Whether this is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a fact. They obviously escaped the economic pressures that have closed schools and hundreds of local business. These districts are meeting the minimum standards, they did not choose to accept financial incentives, and they are funded enough to pay the bills.

Predictions?

This past 10 year period of large-scale school reorganization was not a one-time episode. It was the third period of such activity since the turn of the century. Flurries of school mergers may not be as predictable as snow in January, but it certainly is not as rare as a snow storm in May.

The playing board as laid out by central government is currently flat, and it is blank. Incentives are gone, the financial formula does not work against small districts, and the minimum standards are not high enough to cause change.

This year 31 districts remain on the list of schools that send their high school students to other districts through whole-grade sharing agreements. That number has been decreasing as the districts officially reorganized. This consultant predicts that this trend will continue until relatively few remain on the list, and those that remain, will mainly be one-way sharing schools. These are the districts that send senior high, or junior and senior high, to a partner district and receive no students in return. At some point, legislation could cause the districts with one-way contracts to merge, or the larger partner could insist upon consolidation. Thus far there has been no inkling of legislation, but there is a low undercurrent among some of the larger one-way partners about their perceptions of financially subsidizing the smaller district.

The gradual elimination of the whole-grade sharing contracts would seem to be merely wrapping-up activities. The change from whole-grade sharing to reorganization is not as major an event as the initial combination of school districts.

Other than the wrapping-up reorganizations, the movement seems to have come to a plateau--unless this is a false lull in the action. If we are the beginning of an era of stability, will it last?

This consultant's prediction is that the current steadiness will continue for a time, but school consolidations will start up, and Iowa will go into a fourth round of mergers. The time between the first period and the second was approximately 30 years, and the next plateau lasted about 20 years. With the pace of economic and population change in Iowa moving at an accelerated rate, it could easily be surmised that this time of stability will last--maybe ten years??

There may be the hope among the remaining small districts that they have permanence. This would be nice, but the odds do not seem to point in that direction. What are the conditions that could impose another era of school consolidation?

Of course, legislative moves could do this. However, legislative actions pertaining to merging of local governments have been more of encouragement than force. When the state forced the closure of the elementary school districts in the mid-1960s, there was only a handful left. The force was there, but it certainly was not the defining role in the demise of the one-room schoolhouses. If legislation is to be a part of a new movement, it would probably be one of financial incentives of some nature. Or, there could be encouragement for technological changes, and the emphasis could be toward technology for districts that have large enough volumes of students to efficiently afford the technology.

On the other hand, my visits to several hundred school buildings in more than 200 school districts, point toward one eventual catalyst of change--the aging of the 1900 school buildings (infrastructure). Between 1900 and sometime short of the Great Depression, hundreds of school buildings were put up in towns all over the state. There were only a few basic designs, and some of them produced buildings that are not easily suited for today's needs. This applies especially to the smaller buildings with cramped styles of construction.

Many of these buildings remain; although a lot of districts put on additions after World War II. However, in many cases the overall aging will require extensive construction. A situation that was apparent during this past 10 years is the unwillingness of citizens to go into debt for a 20 year bond issue when they think their district will be gone before the bonds are paid. Simply, there are school buildings in use that have limited life remaining, and if they aren't replaced, there will have to be other solutions. For the smaller districts, the possible answer may be to become a part of a new district with larger student and tax bases.

Whether the reorganization period is actually over or we are in a short-lived time of reprieve, or if the new surge will begin sometime after the Year 2000, this past 10 years has been one "wild ride." The number of districts with high schools dropped from 437 to 353--a 20 percent decline. The movement has been driven by the local decision making process; and, although there have been dozens of locally traumatic issues and actions, the statewide impact and publicity has been minimal.

ISU Research Group Studies School Closings

The Iowa State University Research Institute for Studies in Education published an April, 1994 report entitled, "Perceptions of Educational Quality Following a School Closing." The document describes one of the most comprehensive and informative research projects about reorganization and whole-grade sharing that has been published. The report is in a 95 page booklet, with additional appendices. The team also developed an executive summary. Additional information can be obtained from the institute at the College of Education in Ames.

Through questionnaires, the researchers surveyed students, teachers, parents, and community members from 25 districts throughout the state. Nine of the districts had participated in reorganization or whole-grade sharing within the past three years, and another 10 had done so within the past four to 10 years. The remaining six had not reorganized or shared within the past 10 years. Different survey forms were designed for students, teachers, parents, and community members, and they used two forms for each group. One form asked questions about their opinions of their schools, and the other asked about differences resulting from reorganization or whole-grade sharing. The six districts that had not joined with other districts were asked what they thought merging would do.

The first paragraph of the conclusion portion of the Executive Summary states that:

"The results of this study indicate that closing a high school was perceived to have a positive impact on academic programs and participation in extracurricular activities. Reorganization and whole grade sharing were thought to have a positive effect on the quality of schools, in general, and improve course offerings and access to technology, in particular. While it is often cited that closing a high school will reduce student participation in extracurricular activities, the results of this study did not indicate that this was true for Iowa schools. They did confirm that students, parents, and community members believe that extracurricular activities are important and that all students who wanted to participate in extracurricular activities were doing so. Further, students were satisfied with the variety of activities offered in their schools."

A statement highlighted in the summary was that:

"Closing a high school through reorganization or whole-grade sharing can be a positive experience for a community. Understanding how students, teachers, parents, and the community as a whole are affected is important in the process." (Written by Guy Ghan, Retired DE Consultant)