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 a summary of the sharing and reorganization actions of 1995-96 and an article about a future reorganization era.
The lead article of the July, 1995 edition of this publication was, "IS THE ERA AT AN END?" The narrative went on to point out conditions that support the premise that the reorganization movement, which began in 1985, came to a halt in 1995. The subsequent reorganization activities of 1995-96 additionally indicate that the school districts of Iowa are into another period of organizational stability.
As of July 1, 1996, the number of districts was reduced by five, down to 379. There were five reorganizations involving 10 districts. All 10 of them had been whole-grade sharing, and the merger elections merely cemented relationships that had existed from four to six years. All five of these whole-grade sharing agreements were two-way, which reduces the number of remaining two-way agreements to 11.
No new high school closings were added to the 1996-97 list of whole-grade sharing districts. This is the second year in a row for this occurrence. The only changes resulted from the deletions of those districts that reorganized and the addition of Armstrong-Ringsted as the second recipient partner for Lincoln Central. There are now 26 districts that send high school students to other districts through whole-grade sharing contracts, and there are 36 recipient districts. The larger number of recipient districts is the result of eight of the fifteen one-way sharing schools sending their students to more than one partner.
The number of Department of Education studies conducted by this consultant continues to decrease. However, more importantly, very few of the studies were for districts that are still operating independent K-12 schools. Almost all requests came in for districts that are whole-grade sharing and were contemplating reorganization. Very few districts that are not already whole-grade sharing are exploring new partnership arrangements.
As noted in the companion statistical reorganization report, Iowa has experienced eight distinct historical school organization periods since 1830. When this consultant began working with this topic at what was then called the Department of Public Instruction, historians had identified six of those periods, and two of them involved 10 year stretches of severe reductions in the number of school districts.
Then, when the 1985 movement became clear, this consultant reviewed the archival information about the earlier eras, and named the time between 1966 and 1985 the Enrollment Decline Period. He also gave the new era the title of School Reorganization Movement, but left the ending date blank. This publication adds the ending date as 1995, and it gives the newly beginning period the name of Organization Stability.
The ending date for the Organization Stability period is blank. It is this consultant's opinion that someone in the future will add an ending date and give a name to a renewed time of school reorganization.
This is a personal message to those of you connected with school districts that may be a part of a serious merger movement--probably early in the next century. Let me switch from the more formal third person mode to a lighter first person approach. After conducting more than 280 studies, with most of them involving visits to the districts and meeting with the boards and public, I think we can be on a first name basis. Meeting after meeting in hot gyms, talking about sharing and reorganization, does make one very familiar with the territory.
With the message being relayed in this publication, there may be very little reason to write one of these articles again. A short annual update on the few reorganization activities may do the job. However, there are a few general thoughts you may need to know. First, what is likely to be the overall characteristic of another consolidation period? Then what catalysts may cause the next time of change? Last, what can be done to prepare for, or forestall, a loss of a local educational service?
Some of the written material from the 1950s and 1960s indicate that the school reorganizations of the period resulted from a modernization movement throughout Iowa. One of the authors felt that the World War II GIs returning from all over America and the world launched a major campaign to bring Iowa forward in time.
It was during this period that paved roads blanketed Iowa, and utilities reached every corner of the State. Outdoor plumbing became a thing of the past. Shopping malls and fast "everything" became entrenched in our state. In other words, except for the lack of huge metropolitan areas, Iowa tends to pattern the commercial markets of most other states. The observers of school structuring thought that the closing of the one room elementary schools and the major combining of high schools were parts of the same movement.
It has been my thinking for several years now that the school district mergers from 1985 to 1995 were characterized as government business adjustments. The reorganizations almost always began with mild sharing contracts that led to whole-grade sharing. These activities were under the control of the boards of directors, and they pursued them like two businesses putting together their assets. The smaller districts formed two-way partnerships in order to keep as much of their services local, while still obtaining the benefits of larger volumes of business (student enrollments). However, not all were able to keep much. They had gotten too small or waited too long. The larger partners, on the other hand, were with rare exception eager to have the smaller neighbor come into the fold. Most had to exchange something--possibly a junior high or a middle school, for the smaller district's high school. A few merely welcomed in a neighbor.
The planning, the marketing studies, and the bargaining were all similar to the activities of private enterprises. There were no state government fiats that required certain sizes, and the minimum educational standards are low enough to fall below the level of what the small districts can provide. The boards basically addressed the situations in very business-like manners. They balanced the product with the cost.
What will cause another time of school consolidation? I don't know. It could be a complete infusion of technology into the educational system. Right now, such an event takes a lot of imagination, but something will emerge, just like the business contracts negotiated between school boards.
Several components tended to drive this movement, and some were the same in the 1950s and 1960s. Program and finance are certain to crop up again.
Educational program has been and will continue to be a cause for change. Schools cannot escape the continuing need to change their product anymore than other industries. The tendency has been for services and products to always expand. I remember when automobiles did not have seat belts and radio and heaters were optional. The auto of today has gadgets unheard of 50 years ago, and most have wrap-around, stereophonic sound systems. The marketing of autos has dramatically changed, and so has the marketing of education. It seemingly takes a larger volume of business to provide the product and stay in business.
Finances are also a continuing cause of change. The smaller districts often have more financial problems since their overhead tends to be high and they have to stretch much further in order to provide the wide array of services people have come to expect. Also, they are much more likely faced with reorganization as an alternative to going too far into a financial abyss.
The State's role has varied over time. The state was very aggressive during the 1950s and 1960s. It closed many schools for not meeting the standards, and this carried a message to others. The recent period of reorganization found the state offering financial incentives for reorganizing and sharing. Financial incentives were also offered during the Consolidated School Movement of the early 1900s.
The State's image is possibly separate from its role. My predecessor reorganization consultant from the 1950s and 1960s was a man named John Schultz, and his written accounts of the era seemingly present a different image. The state superintendent at the time was J.C Wright, and he physically accompanied John Schultz on reorganization studies. That is a far cry from one lone consultant, along with a partner accreditation consultant, conducing studies at the requests of the boards. However, citizens often have an image of state government encroaching on local control. On many occasions, I had to assure groups of people that county districts will not be forced on them. I explained that some parts of the state may move in this direction, but for the most part, counties are artificial lines that do not mesh with the natural locations of communities and the people they serve. But, the more problematic image came from the publicity that schools will need 1,000 students. There had been talk about this at higher levels, but nothing came close to action. I frequently assured citizens and board members that they should make their decisions based upon the needs that exist at this time. The schools that enroll 1,000 may be able to offer a lot for an economical amount, but boards and citizens need to use their judgments about gathering in enough territory to reach that enrollment. size.
The condition of school facilities has not been an overly pervasive component during the recent set of mergers. However, many of the early 1900 structures are now close to the ends of their useful lives. The medium size and large districts will continue to replace them, but the smaller districts may have trouble doing so. During the past several years, some of the districts built new facilities as a part of their merging process. These districts purposely made new buildings a part of the plan, and they have every expectation that the new buildings will have long-term value. The problem next century will take place where the districts have very low property tax bases or where there may not be enough confidence in future stability to pass a bond issue.
Technology played a minor role during the past era of change, but it is almost certain to become even more important regarding school consolidation. In just a few years, technology has advanced far from being an accumulation of a few small computers in the library. Schools are amassing large collections of hardware and software, and the need for expert help is increasing. If this trend continues, it will become more difficult for the smaller districts to afford all of the hardware and software that is needed, along with the people who know how to lead the technology movement.
Other elements could be added to the list of things that helped move the reorganization movement along. However, the above seem to have been the most universal.
During the past era, many partnerships were developed because the schools involved formed natural alliances. Their buildings may have been only a few miles apart, and everything seemed to fall into place. However in other situations, districts examined options, and they exercised choices. This selection activity applied to districts at both ends of the spectrum--the larger and the smaller potential partners. Some had choices regarding which partner to select, and others may have had bargaining power about which grades to locate in which facility. Some of the choices resulted from good or bad decisions that had been made in previous years. For example, neglected buildings became liabilities during the negotiating process; whereas, new and well-maintained structures attracted partners.
It is my expectation that many districts will be faced with choices like this sometime in the near future. The districts that are still relying on their three story 1910 buildings may be in a bind in their efforts to keep some type of educational unit in their communities. Maybe something positive can be done to better the facility conditions--maybe not.
My suggestion is that districts form facility study committees, that the committees use expert help, such as Milt Wilson from the Department of Education or an engineer, in order to assess the facility and site conditions, so that short and long range plans be developed. During the numerous visits to districts while conducting reorganization studies, I often found a lack of awareness about the true conditions of what the districts have. Statements from the study team that a building was a one out of a scale of one to ten often drew surprised reactions, when such comments should have revealed nothing new.
Schools need to put a lot of emphasis on buildings during the negotiations that take place for whole-grade sharing or reorganization. In the eyes of citizens, they are extremely visible indicators of quality--just as buildings are in any business.
It is difficult to direct suggestions toward the financial conditions that may help or hinder districts as future consolidation takes place. The relevant factors are numerous, and they can change from year to year. However, I do urge districts to more completely use the new technology and financial accounting systems that are available. A few boards came together to bargain over whole-grade sharing contracts with very little finance data to serve as backgrounds.
For example, in a few sharing arrangements, a problem was to determine the variation in expenditures between the junior high or high school programs. The accounting system provides for such record keeping, but since the State does not require that level of detail, many districts refrain from using it. In some studie, I was able to help the districts reconstruct their records in order to determine the cost differentials. In other cases, the record keeping patterns were so sparse that the variations could not be established until subsequent years.
Districts need to use technology to keep detailed financial records. On the other hand, a healthy amount of discretion is needed in order to draw a balance between understandable summaries and "overkill" detail when preparing reports for the boards and public. Solid financial information is needed to support almost any business deal, and school district reorganization is no exception.
A third and much more difficult area to address is educational program and quality. When districts study and plan their mergers, they come together with assessments of their educational programs which are so often based upon pure image. In the hundreds of contacts I have had with staff, boards, and citizens of the local districts, I have found that most people say they have an excellent school. However, in reality, most fall within the average range, with some well above, and a few at the low end. In other words, a healthy dose of reality is needed.
The discussion of educational program was a part of virtually all reorganization studies and meetings. The debate almost always centered around the concepts of "bigger is better," or "smaller is better." Seldom did either side convince the other side. The arguments advanced between 1985 and 1995 were almost identical to those listed in the literature covering the 1952 to 1962 reorganization period. Little seemed to be settled at the theoretical level.
The major approach we used during studies was to refer interested parties toward districts that would have characteristics similar to what the potentially combined school would have. In other words, if the two districts examining a merger would enroll a combined student population of 800, we encouraged the citizens' study committee to visit other districts with comparable enrollments. The visits were even more meaningful if the comparable schools were among those that recently consolidated. The specific pluses and minuses of merging could be discussed. Many times the visits impressed the boards or study groups, and such activity led toward the decisions to whole-grade share. However, on other occasions, the visits convinced the participants that their smaller school was better.
The most important advice I can provide is for educators working with the assessment and improvement of instruction is to develop a product that students need and that the public will buy. I cannot recall how many times we stood in a gym with a hundred or more people, giving them suggestions about school reorganization. However, as we go back through the records, it can be seen that our suggestions had merit, and most were followed. But I guarantee, we would have been chased out of the gym if we didn't speak in plain English and present ideas with substance. The public would not have tolerated the use of buzzwords and clichÈs. (Written by Guy Ghan, Retired DE Consultant)
Feedback:
Reorganization Comments