This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.
Illinois School Board Journal
July/August 2004
Exploring realities of reorganization
by William Phillips and Scott Day
William Phillips and Scott Day are both associate professors of educational leadership at the University of Illinois-Springfield and have conducted reorganization studies in Illinois for the past three years. Phillips, a retired superintendent from Belle Valley SD 119 in Belleville, specializes in finance and collective bargaining. Day, a former middle school principal, specializes in instructional design, curriculum and organizational theory.
Rossville-Alvin CUSD1 had been co-oping athletic programs with a neighboring district for a number of years and had discussed more permanent, formal solutions for a persistent loss of enrollment and declining equalized assessed valuation. So, deciding the time had come for a serious discussion of district reorganization with all of its ramifications, the district commissioned a full-scale feasibility study of school district reorganization with five neighboring districts.
Serious discussions are the first step. With the current financial outlook in Illinois - rising costs, often overburdened local property taxes and less state aid - it is understandable that school boards are exploring reorganization due to financial incentives.
But for school boards, reorganization is about more than just money. The reality is that communities must discuss the possibilities of busing students to another town, of merging services and academics with a neighboring district, of developing cooperative sports schedules, and ultimately of looking at how to blend an entire school system with another town down the road.
In past experience, aside from the practicalities of balancing budgets, these communities engage in a kind of grieving process with the loss of fond memories and the symbolism of their alma mater. But in order to provide educational opportunities for their young people, communities need to be willing to get past the memories and symbolism to the realities of reorganization.
Decisions to support or reject a proposed merger tend to be based on perceptions, which can be influenced by how well the local school board communicates with the public from the beginning of the process.
Often, due to a rather short timeline to get a plan approved and on the ballot, communities feel less sure of their decision. People need time to collect their thoughts and ask questions. The longer communities talk before moving, the better accepted the change might be.
Developing long-term relationships before a merger enters the talking stage can help. Those relationships can include cooperative sports or music programs, sharing academic courses or staff, or planning special events between communities.
Successful mergers also often are influenced by the relationship developed between school board members and superintendents from all participating districts. A strong show of support from all school officials is absolutely critical to help the public embrace the plan.
In addition, the community needs to see how such a big change will help children. Seeing the benefits of an improved curriculum and enhanced programs can be a major determinate for community support, beyond any financial incentives.
For the past three years, we have teamed with districts to conduct feasibility studies prior to a petition for reorganization being presented to the regional superintendent or a regional board of school trustees. During that time, we have seen acceleration in the communities' and school boards' willingness to explore the various legal methods to reorganize that are currently available in Illinois.
Historic perspective
Although Illinois has an extremely large number of school districts, it should be remembered that until a few decades ago, the number was even greater. Before the end of World War II, Illinois communities supported nearly 12,000 school districts. Through an evolutionary process, that number has decreased to the current total of 887.
During the last 20 years, key aspects of school reorganization, or district consolidation, have been studied not only at the state level by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) but also nationwide. Results of those studies, when added to information gleaned working with communities, provide a wealth of information that professional educators and boards of education may find helpful when faced with the prospect of reorganization.
Early in this evolution, it was recognized that fewer, stronger districts would serve communities and students better. In 1983, three financial incentives to reorganize were offered to school districts:
Over the years, these incentives evolved into a complicated formula that essentially allowed combining districts to start with at least a "zero deficit" in major operating funds. In 1985, the so-called $4,000 incentive was enacted by the General Assembly. This guaranteed an annual payment of $4,000 per full-time certified staff member for a period of one to three years based on a formula called the "quintile system," essentially providing more dollars to smaller, poorer in EAV-per-student districts that reorganize.
Logic would seem to favor reducing the total number of school districts and expanding their geographic areas in order to increase a district's student enrollment and gain economic efficiency. Arguments for this include the May 1985 ISBE study on school district reorganization that stated students in "... hundreds of very small districts were receiving a significant loss in opportunity to learn when the courses available to them are compared with those available to students in high schools with enrollments of over 500 pupils."
That study concluded the current system of organization means: "uniform access to both adequate financial support and reasonable educational quality is not permitted by the present organization of our school districts."
Following the study, Public Act 84-126 made sweeping changes and mandated the reorganization of many smaller districts into larger districts through an elaborate set of procedures. However, due in no small part to tremendous political pressure, the General Assembly quickly modified this law with Public Act 84-114, which became effective March 20, 1986, to effectively eliminate mandatory reorganization.
One remaining requirement of the original law was that each Regional Office of Education conducts a "required study of reorganization." It is at this point that ISBE currently awards payment for reorganization feasibility studies.
Strong interest
Despite the amendment that caused Illinois to step back from mandated reorganization, a strong interest and concern about school consolidation still exists. Clear benefits of reorganizing exist for students - in terms of curriculum offerings - and for districts - in terms of the finances of maintaining fewer facilities. Yet these issues just scratch the surface of the number of viewpoints involved in this complex process.
Often our study team is asked about financial incentives and their reliability. This state expenditure has played a significant role as districts consider such changes. But two exceptions to incentive payments have occurred: the first in 1996 when the ISBE line item was not sufficient to pay all of the incentives for that year; and second when incentives were entirely eliminated by Governor Rod Blagojevich in 2003, and then later restored.
Since 1986, $120.3 million has been spent on incentives for school district reorganization. (See Chart A.)
Legislation since 1983 has removed many of the financial hindrances to consolidation, such as the equalization of taxing power for dual districts in the education and building fund. In contrast, "disincentives" to reorganization still exist in the form of transportation, working cash, life safety and lease fund authorized levies for dual districts as compared to a unit district. These existing taxing "disincentives" are illustrated in Chart B.
While state law mandating reorganization met with a great deal of resistance from local school districts, the legislature and ISBE have attempted to encourage it by offering financial incentives. Plus, they increased from three to four years the time that those incentives are available for newly combined districts. This assistance has sparked a renewed interest among smaller unit districts in dealing with their sparse high school populations.
Small districts also may consider reorganization simply because the "economy of size" has caught up with their budget, and they find it increasingly difficult to fund the quality education of their students in an equitable and efficient manner. The most prevalent example of "economy of size" does not pertain to supply purchases in a district, but generally to the lack of "student body size" in many rural high schools.
Most communities desperately want to maintain a high school as the core of the local social activities in the community. With enrollment reductions throughout Illinois, however, the critical mass of students is dwindling in many high schools. Communities struggle to provide a comprehensive high school curriculum and a wide array of extra-curricular activities with an ever-dwindling number of students.
When the time comes, as it did for Rossville-Alvin, to look at all the options, the state offers a veritable potpourri of allowable methods for all three types of school districts: elementary, high school and unit districts. Chart C shows the pace and choice of each reorganization model since 1983.
For more on the number of different allowable methods for school district reorganization, see "Navigating reorganization options," page 12.
Is it time?
The educational reasoning for consolidation can be found in school data, including: annual school report cards; course offerings; ISAT scores; standardized test scores; number of teaching staff at each grade level; professional development training for teachers; special education services offered; the amount and types of technology used for instruction and other programs; transportation issues; and the size and age of all current facilities. Reviewing data for each facility involved will give school boards and communities an objective picture of academic strengths as well as weaknesses.
Of the eight studies this team has completed since 2002, some have proved to be success stories, while others did not have encouraging results once the feasibility study was completed and presented to the communities. Common elements have emerged that will be helpful to consider in advance of any consolidation study.
On the positive side, success stories were seen within districts that previously had some form of constructive relationship with the school boards from neighboring communities. Most had a successful sports cooperative program already in place, while others had already spent considerable time over the years discussing reorganization for the future.
These school boards were very proactive and their approach and emphasis centered on what was best for children. Successful school boards were able to focus their energies on how the merger would benefit their children and used the study results to carefully develop tools to convince their community. In these situations, the communities understood the importance of acting before the district was completely insolvent.
From an instructional perspective, if communities believe it is their responsibility to provide the best educational programs they can, the decision is much easier to sell. Some communities have an easier time recognizing that they are preparing their children to be successful in a world much different than the one the previous generation prepared for, and create plans accordingly.
Unfortunately, community decisions seldom reflect knowledge of academic programs and curriculum offerings. In most cases where reorganization options were discussed, the most influential deciding factor for community members and boards of education was the location of the high school.
Yet one of the most successful mergers we have seen ran in direct contrast to a desire to preserve a local high school. This occurred when one community had a new high school facility, which the smaller community recognized as a better, positive option for the future of all of their children, despite the grieving process involved. Plus, the districts were able to maintain elementary centers in their communities.
As this shows, cases exist where communities believe that facilities and programs far outweigh the hardship of moving their children to a different school.
The overriding factor in reorganization, no matter which option districts might choose, is the reality that what will be best for the children should be the biggest determining factor.
References
Illinois State Board of Education, "School district reorganization in Illinois," unpublished report, Springfield, Illinois, 1985
William H. Phillips and Scott L. Day, "Reorganization Feasibility Study," unpublished report, Springfield, Illinois 2002
Navigating reorganization options
by William Phillips
Among the currently authorized methods of school district reorganization are eight different legal processes that encompass different kinds of school districts and their legal consolidation or dissolution. The names of the appropriate sections from the Illinois School Code identify the separate legal processes.
Article 11A: Unit District formation is the only method by which a new unit district can be formed from currently existing unit districts or a combination of elementary and high school districts. This is one of the more common methods of reorganization. Districts using this method are able to access all four financial incentives. A majority of voters in each affected area must approve the proposition for it to pass.
Article 11B: Combination of Elementary and High School Districts uses basically the same guidelines for Article 11A consolidations except that it combines either elementary or high school districts. The proposition to create a combined school district passes if a majority of those voting vote in favor of the proposition. Districts using this method of reorganization are also eligible for the financial incentives.
Article 7A: Smaller unit districts, those with less than 250 students in grades 9-12, may convert a unit district into a dual district and annex their high school students to a neighboring high school district. Both the newly created elementary district and the annexing high school district are eligible for financial incentives. Unit districts wanting to use this method must have a contiguous high school district willing to annex their high school population.
Article 11D: Conversions of existing unit districts into dual districts is the newest of the authorized methods and, so far, has not been used in Illinois. It is the only reorganization method where more school districts are created than originally existed. All newly created dual districts are eligible for financial incentives. The proposition to create dual districts using Article 11D must pass in each affected area to be successful.
Article 7: The Regional Board of School Trustees must approve annexations. Annexing districts also are eligible for financial incentives. In addition, the tax rates of the annexed district convert to the existing rates of the annexing district. Since 1997, a majority of voters in each affected district must now also approve annexations in a referendum.
Article 7-2a(a): Dissolutions allow districts with a population of less than 5,000 to petition the Regional Board to Trustees to dissolve their district and annex them to one or more contiguous districts. School boards or a majority of voters in the dissolving district may file petitions for dissolution. This "automatic" provision requires the Regional Board to dissolve the district after a public hearing and annex the district to one or more neighboring districts. The bonded indebtedness of the annexed district remains with the former district unless the annexing district votes to assume their bonded debt. The annexing district is eligible for financial incentives.
Section 10-22.22b: This temporary deactivation of a high school is done with the approval of the board of the receiving district and a vote of the majority of voters in the deactivating district. In this reorganization method, the deactivating district pays an agreed fee per student for educational services through an Intergovernmental Agreement. These agreements begin as a two-year agreement but may be continued for a one- or two-year period. In this method, the deactivated district still exists and continues its financial requirements, including providing transportation to the new district. Since this is only a temporary agreement, no financial incentives are available.
Section 10-22.22c: This option allows two or more contiguous high school or unit districts, each with an enrollment less than 600, to jointly operate one or more high school centers. There is a 20-year minimum requirement for Cooperative High Schools using this reorganization method. A new board of education is created from members of the existing boards of cooperating districts. Since this is also a temporary reorganization method, financial incentives are not authorized. Created in 1987, this reorganization method also has not been used in the state as yet.