Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 4-1986 School Consolidation as Viewed by Michigan Public School Superintendents Dennis Owen McMahon Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons Recommended Citation McMahon, Dennis Owen, "School Consolidation as Viewed by Michigan Public School Superintendents" (1986). Dissertations. 2275. http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2275 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.
SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION AS VIEWED BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS by Dennis Owen McMahon A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College 1n p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of the requirements fo r the Degree of Doctor of Education Department o f Educational Leadership Western Michigan University Kalamazoo* Michigan April 1986
SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION AS VIEWED BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS Dennis Owen McMahon* Ed.D. Western Michigan U niversity* 1986 This study was conducted to determine the attitu d es and opinions o f M ic h ig a n p u b lic school s u p e rin te n d e n ts tow ard school consol1dat1on. Data analysis provided an accurate description of the K-12 public school superintendent's attitu d es regarding school consolidation and demographic Information re la tiv e to selected characteristics of the respondents and th e ir d is tr ic ts. The population fo r th is study was a ll 529 K-12 Michigan public school superintendents. The sample size determined was 106. Of the 106 superintendents selected 103 or (97X) p a rtic ip a te d 1n th e study. The research Instrument* a questionnaire of 25 questions was administered by telephone by th e researcher. The analysis provided: (a) a description and discussion of the responses regarding each survey question* (b) a discussion of the responses to the research questions and examined the relationships between the superintendents' attitu d es toward consolidation and the demographic variables* and (c) cross tabulations between selected sets o f variables. The follow ing conclusions were supported: 1. Over s ix ty -th r e e percent (6 3.IX) of the Michigan public
1. Over s ix ty -th r e e percen t (6 3.IX ) of the Michigan public school superintendents believe more school consolidation should take p lace. However* only 4 4.1% of the superintendents would support consolidation 1n th e ir own d is tr ic t. 2. The p rim a ry concern s s u p e rin te n d e n ts have regarding consolidation are: le g is la tiv e Involvement In consolidation; the Idea of the state mandating consolidation 1n d is tric ts where state standards are not being met; finances; whether fin an cial Incentives would be provided to encourage consolidation. 3. Superintendents believe the major advantages of consolidation would be: course o fferings; s ta ffin g ; f a c ilit y usage; adm inistrative e ffic ie n c y ; and co-curr1cular a c tiv itie s. 4. Superintendents would fa v o r a c o n s o lid a tio n plan th a t Includes recommendations developed by th e S ta te Department of E d u catio n and In c e n tiv e s t o encourage c o n s o lid a tio n. The organization plan superintendents favored 1s school d is t r ic t s consolidating to form la rg e r K-12 d is tric ts. 5. The superintendents did not perceive s ig n ific a n t support levels for consolidation among various groups 1n th e ir d is tric ts. 6. The characteristics of a school d is tr ic t th a t may Influence a superintendent s decision on consolidation are: s ta te equalized v a lu a tio n ; s iz e of th e d i s t r i c t to be merged with; geographic distance of the proposed d is tr ic t; and the economic make up of the proposed d is tr ic t. 7. Superintendents Involved 1n consortia see the consortium concept as a v ia b le a lte rn a tiv e to consolidation.
INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a m anuscript sent to us for publication and m icrofilm ing. W hile the m ost advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this m anuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the m aterial submitted. Pages in any m anuscript may have indistinct p rin t. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. M anuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtain missing pages, a note appears to indicate this. 2. When copyrighted m aterials are removed from the m anuscript, a note appears to indicate this. 3. Oversize m aterials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand com er and continuing from left to rig h t in equal sections w ith small overlaps. Each oversize page is also film ed as one exposure and is available, for an ad d itio n al charge, as a standard 35m m slide or in black and w hite paper form at.* 4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive m icrofilm or m icrofiche b u t lack clarify on xerographic copies made from the m icrofilm. For an ad d itio n al charge, all photographs are available in black and w hite standard 35m m slide form at. * For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions, please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department. T T A / f. T Dissertation L J l V l l Information Service University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Com pany 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
8617357 McMahon, Dennis Owen SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION AS VIEWED BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS Western Michigan University Ed.D. 1986 University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1986 by McMahon, Dennis Owen All Rights Reserved
Copyright by Dennis Owen McMahon 1986
DEDICATION This book 1s dedicated to my w ife Nancy* who has made many s a crifices to enable me to achieve th is goal and other career goals. Your love and support have made th is d is s e rta tio n and th is degree possible. to T1m and J u lie * who are such fin e children! Through your understanding* you have made 1t possible fo r me to take the time necessary to complete th is dissertation. ~ to my parents* Owen and Janet* fo r the constant encouragement you have given me* from my In it ia l e ffo rts to obtain a bachelor's degree* and as I worked fo r th is degree. Your support w ill always be remembered and appreciated. I owe each of you an enormous debt fo r the sacrifices you have made th a t have allowed me to achieve my goal and complete th is degree. Thank you.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance and support of those without whose help th is degree would only be an u n fu lfille d dream. H e a rtfe lt thanks to : D r. Larry Schlack who has served as my student teach er coordinator and my docto ral committee c h a ir; your frie n d s h ip * guidance and constant p o s itiv e encouragement w ill always be appreciated. Dr. S ally Bell fo r giving of her time and a b ilitie s to e d it th is dissertation and fo r the tremendous p o sitive encouragement I received during the e n tire time I worked to complete th is dissertatio n. (D r.) Sheri Lohmlller who contributed more hours than I ever deserved to type a l l th e d r a fts and th e fin a l copy o f th is dissertation. Equally as Important as her typing contributions has been th e continued e n th u s ia s tic * p o s itiv e support she gave me throughout th is project. Dr. Bob Harriet fo r serving as a valued committee member* and for his friendship and constant support. Dr. James Sanders fo r his w illingness to serve on the committee and fo r the many positive suggestions he made to Improve the q u ality of th is dissertation. Dr. Lowell Wallsworth who through his confidence 1n me and his e a rly support Influenced my decision to go back to school and begin 11
working fo r th is degree. D r. Louise B irch fo r her aid 1n developing some o f th e procedures used 1n the research fo r th is d is s e rta tio n and whose advice was Invaluable 1n the completion of th is dissertation. Dr. S h a rif Shakranl fo r his aid 1n properly In te rp re tin g the s ta tis tic a l results of th is study. The 103 Michigan public school superintendents who took the time to allow me to Interview them to complete my research. The members of th e Brighton Board of Education: Dr. Harry A. Davis, Sally Conklin, W illiam Spencer, John Johnson, Sharon CUne, Wesley Armbruster and John Brower fo r th e ir support and encouragement and fo r allowing me to take the time I needed to complete t h is degree. Dennis Boyle, Western Michigan University re g is tra r, fo r his help and friendship as I completed th is d is s e rta tio n. Dennis Owen McMahon 111
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM...... 1 Research Objectives... 5 D e fin itio n of Terms... 6 Assumptions and Lim itations of the Study...... 7 Assumptions... 7 Lim itations... 7 Overview.......... 7 I I. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...9 D e fin itio n of Term s... 10 H istory of School Consolidation In the United States.. 1 1 Trends In Consolidation and Reorganization In Individual States... 20 Recent Reorganization Plans... 23 County Units... 24 Summary of School Reorganization Process In the United States... 26 History of School Consolidation In Michigan... 27 Special Act School D is tric ts... 29 Union School D is tric ts... 31 Graded School D is tric t Act... 32 Continued P r o g r e s s. 33 iv
Table of Contents Continued CHAPTER Further ConsolIdatlon... 33 Recommendation fo r Consolidation... 34 Upper Peninsula Township Act... *...35 Recommendations for Standard... 36 Tax fo r Transportation and T u it io n...38 Important Legislation... 39 Formation of Community School D is tr ic ts..... 43 Michigan Public Education Study Commission.... 45 Primary D is tric ts... 46 Area Studies P r o g r a m... 47 Reorganization Progress.... 4 9 Mandatory Legislation... 50 Pub I Ic Act 289 53 Elementary School Size... 56 Middle and Junior High School S i z e... 57 High School S i z e...59 School D is tr ic t Size and Cost Effectiveness... 60 Comparisons of Course O fferings Related to School D is tric t S i z e...63 Comparisons of th e Q u aiity of the Teaching S ta ff to School D is tr ic t S i z e... 65 Comparisons of Student Achievement Related to School D is tric t S iz e.... 6 7 F ir s t: How In the Past has School D is tric t Reorganization Occurred?....... 70 v
Table of Contents Continued CHAPTER Second: Why Isn t More ConsolIdatlon Taking Place I f I t Would B enefit Educational Offerings and Quality?... 74 Third: What are the Reasons fo r Reorganization Involvement... 76 Fourth: What E ffe c t Have Transportation Changes had on Reorganization?... 80 F if th : What are the Obstacles to Reorganization?... 81 S ixth: What are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Reorganization... 87 Seventh: What are the Arguments Against Encouraging or Forcing More Consol Idatlon?, 92 Eighth: What are the Results of R e o rg a n iza tio n?...95 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY...104 Sample... 104 P r o c e d u r e s.... 106 In strum entation... 106 A n a ly s is... 107 IV. FIN D IN G S... 110 P art I School Consolidation Study Survey R e s u lt s.... 111 Part II Research Q u e s tio n s...128 Research Question 1 128. Research Question 2 130 Research Question 3 131 Research Question 4... 137 vi.
Table of Conten+s--Con+lnued CHAFFER Research Question 5..... 139 Research Question 6 141 Research Question 7... 145 Research Question 8 146 Research Question 9... 148 Research Question 10... 150 Other In v e s tig a tio n s.... 153 D istrib u tio n of Sample... 155 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 158 Conclusions...158 Discussion of Findings... 164 Recommendations for Further Study... 167 APPENDICES A. L e t t e r...171 B. Q u e s tio n n a ire... 173 BIBLIOGRAPHY...179 vii
LIST OF TABLES 1. Total Number of School D is tric ts by Year... 30 2. Three Decade Comparison o f Selected School D is tric t D a t a.... 55 3. Question 1. How Long Have You Been a Superintendent In This D i s t r i c t?..lit 4. Question 3. Age of S u p e rin te n d e n t?... 111 5. Question 4. Are You A nticipating Closing Any School Buildings In Your D is t r ic t In the Next Three Years?...1 1 2 6. Of Those Who Responded Yes to Question 4...112 7. Question 5. Are Course O fferings Limited In Your D is tric t Because of I t s S i z e?... 112 8. Question 6. Has D eclining Enrollment Affected Your Course Offerings?... 113 9. Question 7. Have Your Course Offerings Been Affected by School D is tric t Finances?... 113 10. Question 8. Has D eclining Enrollment A ffected Your Co-Curricular Offerings?... 113 11. Question 9. Do You B elieve More School Consolidation Should Take Place In Michigan?......114 12. Question 10. Should the State Department of Education Develop ConsolIdatlon Recommendations for School D is tric ts to Consider?... 114 13. Question 11. Should the L e g islatu re Develop ConsolIdatlon Recommendations fo r D is t r ic t to C o n s id e r?... 114 14. Question 12. Should the S tate Mandate School D is tric t Consol Idatlon In D is tric ts Where S tate- Wide Curr Icul um/staff Ing/FacI I It le s Standards Are Not Being M e t?...115 15. Question 13. Should the State O ffe r Incentives to Encourage ConsolIdatlon?... 115 v i i i
List of Tables Continued 16. Question 14. I f th e S ta te Department of Education Were to Attempt to Develop a ConsolIdatlon Plan In Which They Recommended Which Schools Should Consolidate, Which of the Following Groups of People, I f Any, Should Serve on That Committee With State Department O f f i c i a l s?.... 115 17. Question 15. I f Michigan Were to Reorganize School D is tric ts Into a New Organization Plan, Which of the Following Plans Would You Support If You Had to Pick a D e fin ite P la n?... 117 18. Question 16. What Do You Bel Ieve Is The Ideal D is tric t Size or Enrollm ent?...117 19. Cross-Tabulation o f: " D is tr ic t Enrollment Size" and "Ideal Enrollment Size"... 118 20. Question 17. Do You B elieve I f More D is tr ic ts In Our State Consolidated That:... 119 21. Question 18. Advantages and Disadvantages of School Consolidation. 119 22. Question 19. As a Superintendent, Have You Ever Been Involved In Consolidation of Two D i s t r i c t s?... 120 23. Question 20. In Your D is t r ic t, Do You B elieve the Following Groups Would Support ConsolIdatlon?... 121 24. Question 22. Is Your D is t r ic t C urrently Involved With an Academic Consortium?... 122 25. Question 23. Is Your D is t r ic t C urrently Involved With a Vocational Consortium or S k ill C e n te r?...122 26. Question 24. Do You B elleve th e Consortium Concept Is a Viable A ltern ative to Consolidation?.... 122 t 27. Cross Tabulation: " Is D is t r ic t Involved In Vocational Consortium" and " Is Consortium Viable A ltern ative"... 123 ix
List of Tables--Contlnued 28. Cross Tabulation: " Is D is t r ic t Involved In Academic Consortium" and " Is Consortium Viable A ltern ative"... 124 29. Question 25. Which of the Following Issues Would Be an Influencing Factor In Your Decision?....124 30. Student Enrollment In the D i s t r i c t... 125 31. State Equalized V a lu a t io n...125 32. Cross Tabulation of "Do You Believe More Consolidation Should Take Place" and "S tate EqualIzed Valuation"... 126 33. Cross Tabulation "Enrollment" and "More School Consolidation Should Take Place"... 129 34. Advantages of More Consolidation as Viewed by Superintendents... 133 35. Disadvantages of More Consolidation as Viewed by Superintendents... 134 36. Percentage of Superintendents Undecided as to Whether These Areas Are Advantages or Disadvantages... 134 37. Advantages and Disadvantages - Superintendents Who Had Been Involved In Consolidation... 135 38. Advantages and Disadvantages - Superintendents Who Have Not Been Involved In Consolidation... 135 39. Do You B elieve I f More D is tric ts In Our State Consol Idated T h a t...137 40. Comparison of Superintendents Responses to Research Question 3 and 4...138 41. Table Cross Tabulation Analysis - Variable "Do You B elieve More School Consolidation Should Take Place" Versus "Support of Consolidation Plan....141 42. "What Do Superintendents B elieve Would be th e Support Level fo r ConsolIdatlon... 145 x
List of Tables -Continued 43. Cross Tabulation A nalysis: "Do You Bel Ieve More Consolidation Should Take Place" Versus "Years As a S u p e r in te n d e n t...146 44. Cross Tabulation of the Two V ariables: "Should More C onsolidation Take Place In the S tate" and "Age of the Superintendent... 146 45. Factors Inf IuencIng Consol Idatlon D e c is io n s...150 46. Cross Tabulation of "More Consolidation Should Take Place" and "Limited Course Offerings"... 151 47. Cross Tabulation o f: "More Consolidation Should Take Place" and "Course O fferings A ffected by D is tr ic t Finances"... 151 48. Cross Tabulation o f: "More Consolidation Should Take Place" and "D eclining Enrollment A ffects Course O fferings"... 152 49. Cross Tabulation of This Group of 34 Superintendents Responses to : "More ConsolIdatlon Should Take Place" and "State Equalized Valuation"... 153 50. Cross Tabulation of th e Two V ariables: "More Consolidation Should Take Place" and "State Should Mandate Consolidation I f Standards Are Not M e t"...154 51. Sample D is trib u tio n by Stratum...156 xi
CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Consolidation (combining o f two or more school d is tric ts Into a s in g le * la rg e r adm inistrative u n it) o f school d is tr ic ts has been occurring 1n the United States since 1843 (Abel* 1923). Some school d is tr ic t consolidations have been forced by economic re a litie s * some by state o ffic ia l actions. Even though school consolidation could aid 1n solving a number of serious educational problems faced by small school d is tric ts * there have been only three school consolidations 1n Michigan over the past f iv e years. I t 1s d i f f i c u l t to understand why more school consolidations have not taken place 1n Michigan when one considers the state-w ide surveys done over the past three years* with randomly selected c itizens o f Michigan* th a t have Indicated th a t a m ajority o f Michigan residents support school consolidation (Michigan Department of Public Instructio n* Analysis of the Revenues and Expenditures fo r 1983* 1984* 1985). O f f ic ia ls o f th e S ta te Department o f Education and S ta te Superintendent Runkel have stated more school consolidation needs to take place 1n Michigan ( Education USA. 1985). However* no e f f o r t has been made to determine how superintendents 1n th e s ta te o f Michigan see the Issue o f school consolidation nor to discover under what c irc u m s ta n c e s * 1 f any* th e y c o u ld or would s u p p o rt more consolidation. Inform ation needs to be obtained from superintendents 1
to see 1f» 1n th e ir opinion* more should be done to encourage school consolidation and* 1 f so* when 1t should be accomplished. Much theorizing and hypothesizing has been done by leg islato rs and Department of Education o ffic ia ls as to school superintendents' views o f consolidation ( Education USA* 1985). I t 1s surprising th a t no e ffo r t has been made to obtain the views of those leaders of school d is tr ic ts on th is c r itic a l Issue. The results of th is study w ill provide the opinions and views of school superintendents on the Issue o f school consolidation. Using these data* strategies can be developed to better promote school consolidation. These data w ill be useful 1n the development of a state-w id e plan fo r school consolidation 1n our s ta te. This study 1s th e f i r s t conducted 1n Michigan and th e United States th a t attempts to determine school superintendents' attitu d es and opinions on school c o n s o lid a tio n. This study also yields demographic and personal data th a t w ill enable th is researcher to examine the relationship between the superintendents' attitu d es and opinions toward consolidation and selected demographic v a ria b le s. School d is tric ts with smaller student enrollments cannot o ffe r the proper adequate educational program fo r th e ir students according to Conant (1967), Osburn (1 9 70), Schultz (1 9 5 9), and Smith (1963). School d is tric ts with large enrollments cannot Involve most 1n extra c u rric u la r a c tiv itie s * according to Barker and Gump (1964), Morgan and Alvin (I9 6 0 ), and Sher and Thompklns (1976). Therein lie s the Issue. The size of a school d is tr ic t has an e ffe c t on many phases o f the
schooling process: finances* s ta ffin g * building u t iliz a t io n and curriculum. d is tr ic ts. Decisions regarding these Issues are l e f t to Individual School superintendents have to deal with the effects of the potential problems small and large school enrollments can cause In a school d is tr ic t. Many school buildings curren tly 1n use were b u ilt to handle the post World War I I "baby boom" and are now being operated a t less than c a p a c ity. The operational expenses for these buildings have not decreased but have* 1n fa c t* Increased with the cost of energy 1n re cent years. Consolidation 1s considered to be a solution for d is t r ic t s highly Impacted by larg e enrollm ent declines. Consolidation or reorganization has been seen as one way to get schools to operate more e ffic ie n tly and to better provide a w e lld iv e rs ifie d curriculum fo r th e ir students. Others oppose school consolidation c itin g a loss of community Id e n tity * and loss o f Individual atten tio n fo r Individual students 1f d is tric ts consolidate (American Association o f School Administrators Commission* 1965). Others c ite probable loss of e x tra -c u rric u la r o p portunities (Barker and Gump* 1964). Educational leaders* le g is la to rs* and c itiz e n s In Michigan have l i t t l e disagreement over the d e s ire to provide equal education opportunities fo r a ll children 1n our state (Education USA* 1985). Although some school d is t r ic t s 1n th e U nited S tates have developed consolidation plans* th is process has not met with much success 1n Michigan. In fact* 1n the past three years* only two school d is tric ts * B a ttle Creek Public and B a ttle Creek Springfield*
have gained voter approval for a school consolidation plan. Even though 1 t appears th e p u b lic favors th e concept of school c o n s o lid a tio n and re o rg a n iz a tio n * th e M ichigan Department o f Education has not developed a state-w ide master plan for school consolidation* nor has the state offered any recommendation of other possib le ways to reo rg an ize school d is tr ic ts to make them more educationally e ffe c tiv e and cost e ffic ie n t. I t 1s reasonable to believe th a t unless the local superintendent (th e Ieg1t1m 1zer) 1s w illin g to openly support lo c a l school consolidation with another d is tric t* such a consolidation has very l i t t l e * I f any* chance of passing. I t 1s» therefore* Important to know and understand superintendents' attitu d es and opinions on th is c o n s o lid a tio n question before more e ffo r ts are made to adopt c o n s o lid atio n models or push fo r more school consolidation state wide. Serg1ovann1 and S ta rra tt (1983) define power as "one's a b ility to Influence the decision making process" (p. 105). The superintendent by v irtu e of his position of authority can Influence opinions and decisions of the community and the school d is tr ic t s ta ff. Leadership to encourage and promote school consolidation occurred from the S tate Department o f Education fo r many years. Many consolidations occurred p rio r to 1965* but very few have ocurred since th a t time and school consolidation and reorganization have v ir tu a lly come to a h a lt 1n our sta te (Michigan Department of Public In s tru c tio n * Report o f the Superintendent o f Public Instruction* 1881-1985). Why 1s th is? One possible explanation 1s th a t school
superintendents, a group with great Influence on th is Issue, are against consolidatio n. This study w ill address th e question: What are the a ttitu d e s of public school superintendents 1n Michigan toward school consolidation? Research Objectives The purpose of th is study 1s to attempt to ascertain the current a ttitu d e s and opinions of Michigan public school superintendents toward school c o n s o lid a tio n 1n th e s ta te o f Michigan and to determine: 1. I f public school superintendents are 1n favor of or opposed to more school consolidation 1n the s ta te o f Michigan. 2. What s p e c ific c h a ra c te ris tic s superintendents believe are Important fo r other school d is tric ts to have to make them a ttra c tiv e fo r possible school consolidation with t h e ir own school d i s t r ic t. 3. What superintendents believe would be the advantages and disadvantages for the d is tr ic t 1 f they were Involved 1n consolidation and do the superintendents' responses vary 1f the superintendent was previously Involved 1n consolidatio n. 4. What superintendents believe would be the e ffe c ts of more school consolidation 1n the s ta te on the costs of education, the q u ality of course o fferin g s, the use of f a c ilit ie s, s ta ffin g, coc u rrlc u la r a c tiv itie s, and adm inistrative e ffic ie n c y. 5. Whether a s u p e rin te n d e n t's age; number o f years as a superintendent; size of d is tr ic t; or the school d is tr ic t's fin an cial status a ffe c ts the superintendent's support or lack o f support fo r
consolidation. 6. What type of consolidation plan superintendents would support I f the State Department of Education were to draw up a consolidation plan* and what groups the superintendents believe should be Involved In drawing up consolidation plans fo r the s ta te. 7. What superintendents believe would be the support level for consolidation by th e ir teaching s ta ff* support s ta ff* board members* community members* students* adm inistrators* and themselves. 8. I f s u p e rin te n d e n ts b e lie v e the s ta te should mandate c o n s o lid a tio n fo r school d i s t r ic t s where s ta te standards fo r currlculu rn /staffing/fac1l1t1es are not being met. 9. What p rim a ry concerns superintendents have regarding consol1dat1on. 10. I f superin te n d e n ts a ttitu d e s and opinions toward school consolidation vary 1 f: (1) course o ffe rin g s 1n the d is t r ic t are lim ited due to the size o f the d is tr ic t* (2) the course offerings 1n the d is tr ic t have been affected by school d is tr ic t finances; and (3) declining enrollment has affected course o ffe rin g s. D efin itio n of Terms K -I2 School D is tr ic t A public school a d m in is tra tiv e u n it 1n Michigan which o ffers th irte e n years of education from Kindergarten through tw e lfth grade. Consolidation the legal procedure enabling two or more school d is tric ts to jo in together to form a larger d is tr ic t.
Assumptions and Lim itatio n s o f th e Study Assumptions 1. Superintendents w i ll have Informed opinions about school consolidation and Its effects on school d is tric ts. They are well versed on Issues. 2. Respondents to th e questionnaire w ill express th e ir true opinions and not provide the " p o lit ic a lly acceptable response". Lim itations 1. Findings and descriptive assertions from th is study* although g e n e ra liz a b le to th e s ta te o f M ichigan* are not n e c e s s a rily g eneralizable to other states because of the special features of Michigan's educational system. Other states have school d is tric ts e s ta b lis h e d by d if f e r e n t c r i t e r i a. Louisiana* fo r example* establishes a ll school d is t r ic t s by county area. 2. School consolidation can be Impacted by many factors 1n the educational system: the le g is la tu re* the Department of Education* boards of education* parents* students* and c itiz e n s. Because of the lim itatio n s of time* money* the requirements of delim iting a topic* and the leadership position of the school d is tr ic t superintendent* only the superintendents are being surveyed 1n th is study. Overview Following th is Introduction to the study* related readings and research w ill be reviewed 1n Chapter I I. In Chapter I I I * th e author
w ill report the methodology u tiliz e d 1n th e study w ith various summaries o f th e c o lle c t e d d a ta a p p e a rin g 1n Chapter IV. Im plications of these data and recommendations fo r future action w ill be considered 1n Chapter V. A bibliography and various appropriate appendices w ill conclude the study.
CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF LITERATURE In Chapter I* the research problem and objectives for the study were presented. In th is chapter a review of existing knowledge and theory w ill be reviewed. In p articular* the following aspects of the problem are addressed: 1. Studies related to the history of school consolidation 1n the United S tates. 2. Studies related to the history of school consolidation 1n the State o f Michigan. 3. Studies re la te d to optimum s iz e o f schools and school d is tric ts by le v e l. 4. S tu d ie s r e la t e d t o school d i s t r i c t s iz e and c o s t effectiveness. 5. Studies related to comparisons of course offerings related to school d is tr ic t size. 6. Studies related to comparisons of the q u ality of teaching s ta ff related to school d is tr ic t size. 7. Studies related to differences 1n student achievement related to school d is tr ic t size. 8. Other studies re lated to reorganization and consolidation: how school reorganization occurs; problems 1n gaining support fo r school c o n s o lid a tio n ; reasons fo r re o rg a n iza tio n Involvem ent; tra n s p o rta tio n changes e f f e c t on re o rg a n iz a tio n ; 9 obstacles to
reorganization; advantages and disadvantages o f re o rg a n iz a tio n ; arguments against reorganization and re s u lts o f reorganization. D e fin itio n of Terms These terms are used e x te n s iv e ly In th e l i t e r a t u r e on c o n s o lid a tio n. An understanding o f these terms f a c ilita t e s understanding of the review of the lite ra tu re. Annexation The legal procedure enabling one school d is tr ic t to Join or be attached to another school d i s t r ic t. Consol1dat1on The legal procedure enabling two or more school d is tric ts to jo in together to form a larg er d is tr ic t. C ounty U n it A school d i s t r i c t th a t 1s organized as an adm inistrative u n it coterminous!y with the p o litic a l lines of the county. K-12 School D is t r i c t A public school adm inistration u n it 1n Michigan which o ffers th irte e n years of education from kindergarten through the tw e lfth grade. Local C o n tro l The a d m in istratio n and operation of a school d i s t r ic t under a governing body composed of local residents. Non-H1gh School D is tr ic t A school d is tr ic t th a t operates less than a kindergarten or f i r s t grade through tw e lfth grade program. R eceiving D i s t r i c t A d i s t r i c t which accepts and provides education services fo r pupils from one or more d is t r ic t s. Reorgan 1zat1on--T h e formation of new school d is tric ts by the a lte ra tio n of boundaries of established school d is tric ts * and the d issolution of established school d is t r ic t s through or by means of
any one or combination o f methods. R e o rg a n iz a tio n L eg 1 s i a tlo n L e g is la t io n e s ta b lis h in g th e procedures fo r reorganization of school d is tr ic ts. School D is tric t A le g a lly recognized school system under the s ta te school code. Sending D is tr ic t A school d is tr ic t which sends seme or a ll of It s pupils to other d is t r ic t s fo r educational services. H istory of School Consolidation 1n the United States To understand the school consolidation Issue, 1t 1s necessary to review and study the history of school consolidation 1n the United States. P rio r to 1859* no actual discussions of consolidation were held. The educational concern a t th a t time was th a t schools should be organized to provide a system of basic education. The population of our country was s t i l l predominantly rural and most areas of the United States were sparsely s e ttle d. Education to most people at th a t time meant simply providing basic Instruction 1n the reading and math arts ( Illin o is Committee on School Organization* 1974). The y e a rly form ation o f school d is t r ic t s was shaped and determined by social and cu ltu ral conditions prevalent a t th a t time. During the early stages of school d is tr ic t development* most children attended school for three or four years and then generally attended only during the w inter months when they were not needed for work on the farms. The curriculum was larg ely lim ited to the teaching of reading* w riting* and arith m etic. Small school d is tric ts created 1n
the early 1900s were able to provide these lim ited programs, they w ere a ls o w e ll adapted to th e e x is t in g sta tu s of tr a v e l* communication* and population d is trib u tio n 1n those tim es. Most o f these e a r lie r d is tric ts operated one-teacher schools located within walking distance of the children attending. The need fo r these small school d is tric ts diminished as roads were Improved* school bus service became available* and the geographic s ize o f communities expanded. The one-teacher school was a functional unit 1n 1900 (Domain and Olson* 1957). Apparently the f i r s t reorganization of local school d is tric ts took place 1n 1843 when the c ity of D etro it consolidated a large number of separate d is tric ts Into one c ity d is tr ic t under a single board of education (Abel* 1923). The history of the growth of the consolidation of schools 1n our country may be divided In to four w ell-defined periods. From about 1840 to 1880 was a period when the p rin cip le of c e n tra liz a tio n of schools was established 1n urban communities. Eighteen hundred e ig h ty to 1894 was a period of very slow expansion of the consolidation process. Eighteen hundred ninety-four to 1910 was a period of awakened In te r e s t 1n ru ra l schools and g e n e ra lly rapid enactment and Improvement of consolidation and tran sp o rtatio n laws. Nineteen tw e n ty -th re e to 1945 was a period 1n which th e principles of state assistance fo r school d is tr ic t reorganization and consolidation of attendance units became established with fin an cial support from state sources fo r school bus transportation and capital
outlay. The period from 1945 to the present has been characterized by the use of county-wide surveys to determine the best arrangement of the area w ithin the county In to school d is tr ic ts. The procedure used Included: (a) submission of a proposed plan by the county survey group* (b ) th e approval of the plan by a state agency* and (c) ra tific a tio n of the plan by popular vote by the citizen s Involved (Abel* 1923). Between 1850 and 1900 most of the school consolidation took place In the northern states* but around 1900 the southern states began e ffo rts to consolidate school d is tric ts. Northern school d is tric ts th a t had consolidated were v is ite d by southern schools to evaluate th e ir success and the methods they had used to consolidate th e ir schools (Maxey* 1976). According to Monahan (1965) the f i r s t school consolidation for the d e fin ite purpose of securing better educational opportunities for the children appears to have occurred 1n Montague* Massachusetts* 1n 1875. The second was probably established 1n Concord* Massachusetts, 1n 1879. A central building was constructed to replace several one- teacher schools. The major benefits to be gained by consolidation during this period were best summarized by Smith (1938). 1. The consolid ated school would provide b e tte r equipped teachers and more adequate supervision and adm inistration for the schools. 2. More adequate school plants located on school grounds* more
c e n tra lly situated and more suitable for school purposes* would be erected. 3. The school terms would be lengthened. 4. The co n solid ated school would serve as a natural social center. 5. A widened acquaintance group would be forced by th e c h ild re n. 6. The plan would hasten provisions fo r the extension of work to high school le v e l. 7. An In evitab le tendency to Increase school attendance* and the services o f a g ric u ltu re colleges and normal schools would re s u lt. 8. A b e tte r program o f studies would be provided* based on the social needs o f the children and the nature of t h e ir mental and physical growth. 9. The consolidated school would furnish the number of pupils necessary to supply wholesale competition and stimulus 1n school work* to c a rry through adequate grading* to develop groups and project work* and to organize many s o c ia lly s ig n ific a n t types of e x tra -c u rric u la r a c tiv itie s. 10. The education o f th e a d u lts o f th e community would be fostered. 11. The health of th e c h ild re n would be safeguarded. 12. The Improvement o f roads would r e s u lt because o f the necessity of transporting the children to school. There were three plans or types of consolidation considered In the e a rly 1900 period township* m ult1ple-d1str1ct county* and county organization. The township plan Involved abandonment of a ll d is t r ic t
schools. Students attended school 1n the center of the township. T ra n s p o rta tio n to school was provided by the township. School d is tric tin g 1n Ohio was the prime example of th is plan 1n the early years o f consolidation. The m ultiple d is tr ic t county plan was developed 1n Minnesota at the turn of the century. The county commissioners of any county* on p e titio n of tw enty-five percent of the residents* appointed a school commission of seven. One member of the commission was then appointed to be county superintendent o f schools. This commission studied the geographical* educational* and social c o n d itio n s o f the county. Based on recommendations made by the school commission* proposals would be made to divide the county Into consolidated school d is tric ts ranging from four to six miles square. Proposals would then be presented to county re s id e n ts fo r a v o te. Upon a p p ro v a l* consolidated schools would replace the scattered rural schools. The county plan which was quite prevalent 1n the south 1s based on the county being the u n it of adm inistration fo r the schools (Cubberly* 1914). Other v a ria tio n s o f school reorganization th a t were used 1n consolidation plans were the u tiliz a tio n of contractual negotiated agreements between school d is tric ts which remained autonomous to educate th e ir children together. Another mixed-type arrangement had each d is tr ic t provide It s own elementary education and e ith e r contract with other d is tric ts for high school education or set up a high school cooperatively with other d is t r ic t s on a regional basis (Way!and* 1973).
Orchestration of these plans varied but the primary goal was to stream line rural eduction through the aggregation 1n sane fashion of larger numbers of students. This* 1n turn* would fa c ilita t e the development o f benefits to rural schools which were cited e a rlie r. The fundamental aim o f the consolidation movement 1n America was to make l i f e more satisfyin g to the residents of rural areas. The consolidation movement brought about a rejuvenation of hope fo r the rural resident (Undstrom* 1960; Taylor* 1968). Between the years 1918 and 1928 over one thousand school d is tric ts consolidated In our country. I t was not u n til 1918 th a t the United States O ffice of Education started collectin g data on consolidation (Covert* 1930). The c lo s in g o f th e e a rly ru ra l schools was a serious and emotional question fo r th e patrons o f those schools th a t were considered for closing. The rural o ffic ia ls charged with conducting the fin a l clo sin g s o f country schools experienced harassment* vandalism* and threats as they performed th e ir school closing and school consolidation duties. Local people were upset th a t "the pin th a t held th e ir rural communities together was being taken away" (Judge* 1982* p. 134). School d i s t r i c t c o n s o lid a tio n evolved as a s tru c tu re to f a c ilita t e the educational process. Its primary purpose was to provide the programs and services considered to be Important by the people of the state and local school d is tr ic t. One-room schools were fin e a t one time* but as needs changed* more technological knowledge was needed and more s k ill tr a in in g. As a re s u lt* a reorganization of
schools became a necessity as the small one-room schools were unable to meet those needs (Schroeder and Turner* 1969). The fe a r o f lo c a l patrons was "the d is s o lu tio n of t h e ir community" and 1n most cases th a t 1s what happened (Judge* 1982* p. 8 ). In a d d itio n to lo sin g t h e ir community concept* schools* especially 1n the south were concerned th a t the good rural values taught th e ir children would be lo st when schools consolidated and became la rg e r (Maxey* 1976). In th e e a rly years o f school consolidation 1n the southern states* le g is la tio n forcing schools to consolidate was used as a la s t re s o rt. A genuine e f f o r t was made to show rural schools and especially farmers "problems caused from past education sins" (Maxey* 1976, p. 1 7 1 ). The sin s were poor f a c i l i t i e s and programs. O ffic ia ls attempted to demonstrate to farmers how, through better education* students would be b etter prepared fo r modern farming and the changes 1n the economic world (Maxey* 1976). The f i r s t major s ta te le g is la tio n to re q u ire consolidation occurred 1n Illin o is 1n 1945* but th is le g is la tio n was declared unconstitutional two years la t e r (Judge* 1982). There were 127*530 adm inistrative school units 1n th e United States 1n 1931-32 according to the Rural School Survey Report (U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare* 1959). Many of these d i s t r ic t s were not very la rg e. T w e n ty-five thousand of these d is tric ts or one-f1fth had been reorganized Into larger d is tric ts. Twenty-five years la te r, 1n 1953* nearly h a lf the o rig in al number had gone. Five years la te r* 1n 1958* the to ta l number of adm inistrative
units had been reduced to 48*036. In the tw enty-six years from 1932 to 1958* n e a rly tw o -th 1rd s o f a l l school d is t r ic t s had been consolidated or reorganized. In 1930 there were 149*282 one-teacher schools 1n the United S tates. This number had declined by 2 3.9* to 113*600 by 1940. By 1952 th e re were 50*742 one-teacher schools remaining* a decline o f 66* since 1930. There were o n ly 35*000 one-teacher schools l e f t by 1956. In 1948* the United States had 89*000 school d is tric ts * by 1958* 55*000 school d is tric ts * and by 1961* 31*000 school d is tric ts. By the f a ll of 1972* th ere were only 16*555 school d is tric ts 1n our country. In fact* during the past quarter century* no fewer than 73*000 school d is tric ts have been consolidated 1n the United States (Mull 1ns, 1973). The research d iv is io n o f th e National Education Association pointed out th a t the records compiled by the United States O ffice of Education Indicate th a t th ere have been s ig n ific a n t changes 1n sizes of schools and school d is tr ic t units from 1930 to 1952 (National Education Association* 1949). The greatest period of school d is tr ic t reorganization occurred during the fiv e year period from 1948 to 1953 when the to ta l number of school d is tric ts was reduced by 3 6.7 *. Another period of time, when a s ig n ific a n t number of small d is tric ts were eliminated occurred from 1953-58. There was a reduction of 28.4* of school d is tric ts during th a t fiv e year period (United States Department of H ealth Education and Welfare* 1959).
McIntyre (1954) conducted a survey 1n 1951 th a t indicated there were 72*637 basic school adm inistrative units 1n the United States. Two years la te r 1n another survey McIntyre found th a t there were 65*294 adm inistrative units 1n America. This was a reduction of 7*343 ad m in is tra tiv e u n its since the 1951 survey (M cintyre* 1954). I t should be noted th a t the reduction of adm inistrative units th a t was occurring did not necessarily re s u lt 1n adm inistrative units t h a t were adequate 1n s iz e. Even though a 7*000 school adm inistrative u n it reduction occurred for the period from 1952 to 1954* 1t was not nearly as great as the 15*000 school adm inistrative u n it reduction th a t occurred from 1949 to 1951 (McIntyre* 1954). A study done by Dawson and Isenberg (1955) found there was a to ta l of 3*292 proposed reorganizations of a ll types during a three year period from 1955 to 1958. N in e ty -s ix percent o f these reorganizations were comprehensive and 2*962 were p a rtia l. Eighty- one percent o f a l l the proposals were adopted by the voters or designated o ffic ia ls * 8 6.4 * o f a ll proposals fo r comprehensive reorganization were adopted and 80* were adopted th at were concerned with p a rtia l reorganization (United S tates Department o f H ealth Education and Welfare* 1959). Bruce (1960) found th a t during the 1959 to 1960 period* there was very l i t t l e reduction 1n the number of school d is t r ic t s 1n our country. Bruce Indicated there was a need 1n a ll states* especially those w ith medium s iz e d and la r g e c i t i e s * fo r a com p lete reorganization and consolidation of school d is t r ic t s.
Trends In Consolidation and Reorganization 1n In d ividual States 20 Many educational researchers have conducted studies of Individual states th a t have shown how the trend 1n various states compares with the national trend of enlarging the size and decreasing the number of school d is tr ic ts. One o f the most dramatic reductions of school d is tric ts took place 1n Nevada as described by Norman (1 9 6 4 ). One hundred eighty- s ix school d is tric ts were abolished 1n 1956 and 1n th e ir place the Nevada Assembly created 17 county d is tric ts. Norman found there were numerous problems connected with the reorganization* but he also found th a t education was generally Improved by the change. In a study done 1n Illin o is by Hamlin and Sumption (1 9 5 1 )* they found th at* 1n 1945* Illin o is had about 12*000 school d is tr ic ts. Over 8*000 of those d is tric ts provided one-roan schools as the only f a c ilitie s for education. They also found th e re were over s ix hundred high school d is tr ic ts th a t provided secondary educational opportunities for elementary graduates of th a t school adm inistrative u n it. Also over two hundred community u n it d is tric ts had been created. Creation of the canmunlty u n it d is tric ts caused over 5*000 existing d is tric ts to be elim inated. The enrollment 1n these new d is tric ts ranged from 200 to over 4*500 pu pils. According to th e Maine School D is t r i c t Commission* school reorganization 1n Maine had resulted 1n the reduction of a large number of small high schools. I t was reported th at* o f the ninety- two schools with fewer than one-hundred p u pils 1n operation 1n 1957*
only forty-seven schools of th is size existed by 1963 (Wood* 1 9 6 7 ). In Ohio* Campbell and Garafalo (1954) found th a t 1n 1953 there were 1*354 school d is tr ic ts. 934 of these d is tric ts offered both elementary and high school programs. Of the remaining 420 school d is tric ts * 404 d is tric ts had no high school and sixteen d is tric ts provided th e ir children with education by sending them to neighboring d is tric ts. Due to s ta te le g is la tio n * school d is tr ic t reorganization was considered by every county 1n th e s ta te. The trend 1n school reorganization occurred most slowly 1n the s ta te s of C a lifo rn ia and Oklahoma. The C a lifo rn ia Commission on School D is tr ic t Organization (1962) Indicated th a t there were 1*683 school d is tr ic ts 1n 1960 1n th a t state. 705 of the d is tric ts had less than 200 units of average dally attendance and 527 had le s s than 100 u n its o f average d a lly attendance. By July* 1963* there were 155 unified d is tric ts serving approxim ately 51% o f th e p u p ils 1n C a lifo rn ia fo r kindergarten through tw e lfth grade. I t was explain ed by K err (1 9 5 0 ) th a t some e lim in a tio n of d is tric ts resulted from state laws 1n the early part of Oklahoma histo ry. Kerr f e l t th a t the principal results have been obtained through annexation by local elections 1n recent years. The largest number o f school d is tr ic ts 1n Oklahoma a t any one time was 5*880 1n 1914. Fo rty-nine years la t e r th a t number had been reduced to 1*16 0. School d is tr ic t consolidation 1n Michigan has also followed an In terestin g p a tte rn. The Rural Michigan Commission described M ich ig an 's school d is tr ic t organization 1n 1942. The number of
school d is tric ts 1n Michigan had gradually Increased from 55 In 1835 to a maximum number o f 7*362 In 1912. The number of school d is tric ts 1n Michigan decreased each year a fte r th a t date (Michigan Department of Public Instruction* Rural Michigan. 1942). In 1953, the Michigan School F a c ilitie s Survey described Michigan school d is tr ic ts 1n the follow ing manner. 1. Ninety-two percent (9236) of the public school children 1n the s ta te were being educated by less than 116 of th e school d is t r ic t s. 2. Almost 406 o f the existing school buildings were erected p rio r to 1900 and only 6.4 6 were b u ilt between 1945 and 1951. 3. Over o n e-f1fth of the public school children of the state were attending school 1n overcrowded,. make-sh 1 ft or otherw ise unsatisfactory buildings. 4. Twenty percent (206) o f the school d is tric ts 1n Michigan had closed th e ir schools and were purchasing th e ir children s education elsewhere. 5. Over h a lf o f M ich ig an's school d is t r ic t s * 5 3.6 6 * were operating one-room schools enro llin g less than 66 of the s ta te s ' public school children. 6. Two-th1rds of the local school service areas of Michigan by February 1* 1953* were 1n the process of studying th e need fo r adequate f a c i l i t i e s (M ichigan Department of Public In stru ctio n, Report of the Superintendent o f Public In s tru c tio n* 1953).