ANSAS

EGISLATIVE

ESEARCH

EPARTMENT

010-West–Statehouse, 300 SW 10

Ave.Topeka, Kansas 66612-1504(785) 296-3181 – FAX (785) 296-3824kslegres@klrd.ks.govhttp://www.kslegislature.org/klrd

November 2, 2009

:Senator Chris Steineger

From

:Lauren S. Douglass, Legislative Fellow

:School Consolidation HistoryAlan Conroy of our office asked me to assist you with your request for informationconcerning school consolidation in Kansas. The best example comes from the 1960s, when thenumber of school districts decreased significantly, from 2,794 school districts in 1958 to 311 in1969, while the average number of students per school district rose from 167 in 1958 to 1,746 in1969. One major contributor to this consolidation was a piece of 1963 legislation, which dividedthe state into 106 planning units, one for each county with one additional unit in Johnson County.

See

1963 Session Laws ch. 393 § 3 (copy attached). These units were charged withrecommending school districts based on one of two requirements:

•

An enrollment of at least 400 students ingrades 1-12; or

•

At least 200 square miles and an assessedvaluation of at least $2 million.This legislation was intended for “the general improvement of the public schools;” “equalization of the benefits and burdens of education” throughout the state; expediting the organization of uniform school districts that provide free public education from the first through the twelfth grades;and to use state funds more wisely.Legislative history for the 1963 bill is quite scarce, making it impossible to know the exactrationale for that legislation. Prior to its passage, however, another attempt at consolidation fromthe 1961 Legislative Session, SB 400, was deemed unconstitutional,

which led to a concurrentresolution directing the Legislative Council to make a thorough study of the organization of schooldistricts in every county and to collect and use information and records compiled by the StateCommittee on School District Organization and the County Boards of School Planning. The reportresulting from that study likely was considered while drafting the 1963 bill. It provided a summaryof Kansans reactions to SB 400, including suggestions on the issues legislators should consider and the actions they should take. The following lists were compiled to summarize the LegislativeCouncil’s Report.First, members of the County Planning Committees gave their reactions to SB 400.

The Supreme Court held the legislature unlawfully delegated legislative power to countyplanning committees similar to those used in the 1963 legislation, failed to provide adequatestandards for the planning committees, and included a section not covered in the title of the act.

School District Joint

No. 71 v. Throckmorton

, 189 Kan. 259 (1962),

aff’d

189 Kan. 590 (1962).

/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch2365/28710149.doc

Generated more public interest in public education than any previouslegislation.

Planning committee had the confidence of the community such that thecommunity would have gone along with whatever it decided.

“Most of the opposition was due to a large majority of small school not wantingtheir little kingdom disrupted, even at the expense of educational standards.”

A study of the educational economy of the county is an excellent procedure tofollow at any time.Next, the district superintendents discussed improvements that might have resulted fromthe implementation of SB 400.

Consolidation of high school and grade school districts.

Improvement in curricular or co-curricular activities: foreign language, speech,shop, drafting, drivers education, astronomy, botany, psychology, andadvanced courses.

Additional classrooms or equipment and staff.After providing feedback on the 1961 legislation, members of the County PlanningCommittees also suggested issues that legislators should consider in drafting additionallegislation.

"Many schools were consolidated under the 1945 law. No one would go backto where we were at that time. We should have gone further while we were atit. If another unification law is passed, we should, as we plan, look ahead for adecade or more."

When the community is involved in consolidation decisions they will be morelikely to resist any proposed changes.

Support of local leadership is key.

The public needs to be educated on what constitutes a “good school” andshould have plenty of time to consider consolidation plans.Finally, members of the County Planning Committees offered more specific suggestionsfor provisions they would like to see in new consolidation legislation.

Establish conditions that permit equal educational opportunities for all children.

Set minimum standards to determine the adequacy of a school and lackingthese, allow the Department of Education to close a school.

Formulate comprehensible and concrete guidelines without loopholes thatallow communities to evade those things necessary for progress in schooldistrict unification.

Members of the community planning committees should be representativecitizens, all lay members, and preferably not members of school boards.