A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES OF THE PEOPLh IN RICHARDSONCOUNTY NEBRASKA CONCERNING REORGANIZATION

OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

by

louis jay mini

B.M.E., University of Kansas, 1953

A MSTER«S REPORT

submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE

College of Education

KA. SAS STATE UNIVERSITYanhattan, Kansas

1965

Approved by:

Kajor ProfessorrtAJltQ^-'^—

The writer w'shes to express his sincere appreciation

to Dr. 0, Kenneth 0* Fallon, Professor of Education, Kansas

State University for leadership and guidance in reporting

this study.

TA3LE TS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. MI PR0.3LEM AND DEFINITIONS OP TERMS UStD 1

The Problem 1

Statement of the problem 1

Importance of the study 2

Definitions of Terms Used 3

Reorganization 3

Attitudes 4

Institutionalization . 5

II. REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE 6

School District Structure Specifications . • • • 7

The Importance of Sociological Factors 9

Understanding Reorganization and its

Implications • 13

Greater Educational Opportunities Demanded • . • 15>

.Regulations Concerning Reorganization 13

Accepting the Responsibility to Reorganize ... 22

Summary of the Literature 25

III. METHOD OF PROCEDURE AMD LIMITATIONS 23

Defining the Population 23

Western half of County 23

Population of the Report 29

Limitations 29

Concentration of Population 29

iv

CHAPT PAQE

IV. THE STUDY 30

Existing Structure of School Districts .... 30

Tax Support of Schools 34

Educational Opportunities deeded in Relation

to all the Youth of Richardson County .... 37

Reorganization Reluctance I4.O

Reorganization Support \\Z

Proposals for Consideration 44

V. TIO "ARY uro C01H *8 49

The Sumrary 49

The Conclusions $2

BIOGRAPHY 53

ap : 57

V

LIST OF T I -

;LE P<-

Ii Existing Structure of School Districts 32

II. Tax Support of Schools 35

HI, Educational Opportunities deeded in Relation

to all the Youth of Richardson County 3^

IV. Reorganization i.luctance 1+1

V. Reorganization Support • • i.j

3

VI. Proposals for Consideration i\S

CHAPTER I

I PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED

Reorganization of school districts In Richardson

county is moving very slowly* It Is apparent that there

has been no effective leadership Ln this movement and

efforts to extensively reorganize have not been success-

ful. Reorganization has occurred in sone areas of the

county but not to the extent that any real effort has been

made to improve the organizational structure of the school

districts.

I. THE PROBLEM

Statement of the problem . Reorganization of school

districts in Richardson county is a serious problem. As

evidenced in the past, reorganization has been attempted

without any real effort to understand the true meaning of

reorganization and its effect on the improvement of educa-

tion. Although the people of Richardson county are highly

conceir ad about the caliber of schools, no one has thus

far assumed the responsibility to improve the schools

through a concentrated program of reorganization.

The purpose of this study was to explore attitudes

and the understanaings of tne people of Richardson county,

Nebraska relative toi (1) the present school district

2

structure, (2) the adequacy of an education In the public

schools, (3) their knowledge about reorganization of school

districts, and (1|) suggestions and proposals believed

necessary to improve the educational opportunities for

the youth in Richardson county.

Importance of tne study . The people within the

state of Nebraska are slow to reorganize school districts.

At one time, Richardson county had a total of 105 school

districts. During the 196J+-1965 school year, thirty-el bft

school districts were in operation. An additional twelve

school districts in the county continued to retain their

identity and educate their children in other districts

through arrangement of contract a^ree^ents. A total of

fifty districts were still identifiable in Richardson

county.

The total number of school districts in an area is

not important. The size and population of the area are

important and should be considered in organizational struc-

ture. To add to the importance of this study, Richardson

county is eighteen miles wide and averages thirty -one miles

long and is a small enough area to warrant a smaller number

of school districts. The area is not heavily populated.

The greatest concentration of people is in Palls City, with

a population of about five thousand. The population of the

entire county is about fifteen thousand.

3

Reorganization has been proved worthwhile in other

areas of the United States and it is considered possible

that the same advantages can be made possible in Richardson

county*

There is a marked shift in tne population in Nebraska

from rural to urban areas. Extension and expansion of the

s hool programs and improved transportation and co munica-

tion facilities are factors which make reorganization of

school districts imperative. Pro rams of school reorgan-

ization should be preceded by a careful 3tudy of educational

needs and of the resources available for support. In most

instances, reorganization has been preceded by studies,

plans, and recommendations of dedicated personnel,^

ii. wroiTiQHa of tuna used

Reorganization , Reorganization of school districts

is a process whereby two or ^ore districts are formed into

one. Basically, reorganization centralizes administrative

control and maintains schools where location is justified.

The primary purpose of reorganization of school districts

1 elvin W, Farley, "A Study of Local, Lay, and Educa-tional Leadership in School District Reorganization,"Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations , Doctor's Thesis (Lin-coin, Nebraska! University of Nebraska, 1953 $ PP» 2if5-250,

pational Commission on School District Reorganization,

Your School District , (Washington, D,C.i Department of .iuralEducation, 19i+3), p, 116,

Is to improve efficiency In tne operation of schools ad

to equalize educational opportunities for all children.

One authority suggests that reorganization is

synonymous with consolidation. Both terms refer to a

change in uistrict structure whereby two or uore distri -ts

are joined together into a single unit*-* For the pur-

poses of this study, tue word consolidation will ^ot be

used*

Attitudes . An attitude is a relatively constant

tendency to act in certain directions and in accordance

with certain mental patterns. Attitudes may be primar-

ily intellectual and based on knowledge and understand-

ing or emotional and based on appreciation.^"

An attempt was ^ade in t lis study to measure what

people know about school districts and reorganization of

school districts and not what tney should know. With

each interview, this understanding was stressed and each

person interviewed was instructed to express his own

thoughts and opinions. In tne measurement of attitades,

the final product is really a measurement of opi ions.

^Carter V. Good, Dictionary of Education . (Mew York:McGraw-Hill and Company, Inc., 1945* pp. 133 and 3^2.

%illiam H. Burton, The Guidance of Learning Activ-ities . (New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts, Inc., 1962)

,

p. 93.

Opinions, therefore, are expressed attitudes, according

5to HMMNi

Institutionalization , Organizations within communi-

ties ar sonetiiies valued for their own sake at.d apart from

any instrumental service. When a school is institutional-

ized, its perpetuation is seen as an end in itself and not

as a means, A school may be regarded as more than a placo

to learn and in some instances, may be considered personal

property by extremely loyal citizens.

5ll, ii, Remraers, Introduction to Opinion and Attitudemeasure ent , (ijew York I Harper and Brothers, 195^) » P« k*

^Robert R, Alford, "School District Reorganizationand Community Integration," Harvard Education Review.number i\.$ 30:350, Fall, I960,""

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE

The organization ana reorganization of school dis-

tricts has been going on since the establishment of the

first town schools in colonial New England. Recommenda-

tions for enlarging administrative units originated about

a hundred years ago, but little action resulted. The

National Education Associations first resolution on the

problem was in 1911; when it endorsed the plan of a larger

unit in school organization and administration as a means

of promoting greater economy and efficiency. Many states

have completed programs of reorganization successfully.

School district organization has never been regarded

as something that should not be changed. When a district

has not been able to do the job for which it was created,

it has been modified. Our American life is an ever-chang-

ing process and education is an integral part of our

make-up. Therefore to keep in tune with ourselves, it is

^Calvin Grelder, Truman Pierce, and William Rosen-stengel, Public School Administration . (New York: RonaldPress Company, 1961), p. 5*

pAmerican Association of School Administrators,

The Point of Beginning * The Local School District (Studyon School District Reorganization, Washington, Q.C.:Department of the National Education Association, 1953),p. 16.

7

necessary to change those things which will best serve man-

kind. Reorganization or some other plan of sharing the costs

of education is a must if education is to keep pace with the

changing times.

»

A trend in reorganization is toward bigger school

districts so that better educational >jrtunities may be

realized for all students and not just a select few. It

appears that within the next decade, the number of school

districts in the nation will not exceed 15,000. School

authorities believe that there nave been too many school

districts and that reorganization has long been in order. **

I. SCHOOL DISTRICT STRUCTURE SPECIFICATIONS

There is really no inherent value In the size of

a school district, however school districts with a pupil

population of twelve hundred to two thousand or more pupils

provide better school opportunities and greater economy of

operation. ^ It is generally agreed among students of school

administration that a school district should be large enough

^Roald R. Campbell, and Freeman H. Vaughn, "Reorgan-ization Revisited," Illinois Education Association . 26l25l,February, 1961;.

^Howard A. Dawson, "The Reorganization Story Through-out the Country," NfcA Journal , i|3:ll, November, 1959.

^John G. Shultz, "Fewer, Bigger, Better," ijLA Journal .

lj.3:13# November, 1959.

3

to employ at least forty teachers and enrol twelve hundred

pupils In grades one through twelve. In districts that

employ eight to ten teachers with approximately fifty stu-

dents per class in a four year high school, there would

be little opportunity to offer advanced courses or accel-

erated programs that challenge gifted pupils and develop

their full potential. Remedial work that corrects deficien-

cies and helps slow learners over difficult places would

also be difficult and expensive. In the smaller school,

there would be very few, and in many cases, no course

offerings to meet special interests and to develop unique

abilities of students that could be expected in a school

that served children from every level and segment of

community life," Such services as guidance and counseling,

library, health care and needed supervisory personnel are

part of the products of reorganization. Reorganization

should provide facilities that may be used with greater

efficiency. The working conditions for both teacher and

pupil should be more satisfactory.

There are many reasons for the growing move toward

reorganization. A larger district can attract a higher

quality of administration, and more competent supervisors

"American Association of School Administrators,op . cit . . p. 6.

9

and teachers. Reorganization can Increase provisions to

care for individual differences. It should provide better

counseling services, ^ore library and audio-visual facili-

ties, and a wider range of education tools.' Reorganization

should provide for better educational opportunity and .iore

competent administrators and teachers. The public schools

need a staff which is adequately prepared in the subjects

taught and facilities which will allow the school to adjust

its instruction to the individual student.

II. TiiE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIOLOGICAL FACTORS

If educational opportunity for every child is desired,

there is need to help children and their families to under-

stand the role of education in their lives and society as

a whole and to provide services for the ost complete eiu-

ocation possible. In planning for reorganization, school

leaders, such as county superintendents and school admini-

strators, nust come to see the importance of the feelings

and attitudes of people with respect to any part of the

^Walter C. Cocking, "School District Reorganization,"Overview , 2:62, June, 19ol.

3Ibid.

"Francis Keppel, "Want Our Schools to Improve witha Great Restless and Compelling Urge," Education Digest ,

29:5» September, 1963.

10

school operation. *° Due to religious, frternal, and social

ties, the citizens of a particular community will maintain

allegiance to a particular area. Frequently state and

county lines help to define allegiance as ao trade-centers

and institutionalized schools. Factors affecting reor an-

ization are closely related to soclolo leal ties. 1

Alford found that cooperation or rivalries between

Ohio neighborhoods or communities and what tue change would

mean to the life of the communities ranked much higher than

advantages or disadvantages of expanded service to pupils

as factors most affecting decisions of the people on school

reorganization.^2 Other major areas hampering school dis-

trict reorganization programs Include aversion to change,

opposition by rural districts to urban districts, fear of

losing local control of the school and concern over the

location of the school. Financial, political, legal, and

sociological factors affect school district reorganization

programs considerably. In general, existing scaool finance

programs do more to ret rd reorganization than to encourage

it. In Indiana, it has been concluded that no single piece

10Roald F. Campbell, "Feelings Are Facts in School Dis-trict Reorganization, 1

' Nation's Schools , 57*53, March, 1956.

11Ibid.

12Robert R. Alford, "School District Reorganizationand Community Integration," Harvard Education Review , numberk» 30:350, Fall, I960*

11

of legislation would likely solve organizational problems.

Much legislation will be necessary to consulate a detailed

organizational program in any area. 13

The effective school district makes it possible to

bring children and adults together in groups that can

participate easily and naturally in the educational program.

Failure to understand community life and its social signi-

ficance frequently leads to misconceptions as to desirable

school district organization.

One of the chief reasons for disappointing results

seems to have been the failure to plan and carry on a good

public relations program in the community and throughout

the county where reorganization was attempted. Generally,

public relations activities which enter in school district

reorganization are designed to meet tnree basic needs: (1)

to inform the people about the proposed plan or reorgan-

ization, (2) to gain the participation of the citizens gener-

ally in the planning and realization of the plan, and (3) to

arouse the voters so that they will go to the polls and vote

favorably on school district reorganization.^

*3Burton W. Kreitlow, "Organizational Patterns:Local School Districts," Re /Jew of Educational Research .

31:330, October, 1961.

li+Leslie L. Chisholm, School District Reorganization(University of Chicago: Midwest Administration Center,19S7i P. 57).

12

Many people resist the reor anization of school dis-

tricts and support one-teacher schools because thoy fear the

destruction of neighborhood centers or of a community life

which does not exist in any real sense and probably never

did. Those who oppose reorganization often fear the loss

of local control, loss of community Identity, and the possi-

bility of increased costs of education. Practically all

arguments against reorganization have a nigh emotional con-

tent and involve loyalties which, even when misplaced, show

the deep commitment to and interest in education of the

American people. Indeed, one of the primary obstacles to

reorganization of small high schools into more efficient

academic and vocational units is the loyalty to the symbols

of the school as expressed by athletic teams, bands, and

other public evidences of activities carried on in the

school.-*--*

As society becomes ore complex, it has been neces-

sary to broaden the curriculum and add to the number of years

of formal education. The common school district based on

the local neighborhood usually can no longer provide the

kind of educational program needed or desired. 1" in many

l^Campbell and Vaughn, op_, cit . , p, 249 •

^National Commission on School District Heorganiza-tion, Your School District (Washington, D.C.I Departmentof Rural Education, 191+3), p. 71.

13

parts of the country, there Is much evidence to indicate

that the administrative unit and the natural community

should be coterminous, lasic administrative units should

not be s taller than the area included within the boundaries

of the natural sociological community. Sometimes it may be

both desirable and practical to include two or ^ore such

communities so that the enrolment may be large enough to

justify a good program. In every community, there is a

need, individually and collect i ely for wholesome health

practices, adequate nutrition, satisfactory family living,

good social relationships, wholesome recreational facili-

ties, and a solid economy. An educational program cannot

be entirely satisfactory unless all the people in the area

it serves receive a reasonable measure of these advantages,

III. UNDERSTANDING KBOfiOAIIZATIOl MO

ITS IMPLICATIONS

Many factors have delayed the formation of school

districts of adequate size. Politically ambitious local

school trustees; community acceptance of the "status quo";

misconceptions of what a reorganized district would mean;

cumbersome procedures for reorganization; and state school

finance structures, in so-^e states, wh'ch have favored

small districts are obstacles which must be considered when

reorganization is promoted. These conditions must be

Ik

anticipated by the leadership and progrnr s developed 'o

bring underst; '.

* as reorganization pro, r^snes. Several

real concerns should Include the adjustment of people to

a larger coMnunity, understanding the new tax structure and

ovlng the policy-makers further away from the people. «

Despite obstacles, reorganization has gone forward.

The number of school districts in the United States has

decreased by sixty-eight per cent since 1931» Further

reduction is necessary to bring further improvements in

school opportunities for children. 1°

There appears to be a slowing down of reorganization

in comparison with the pace of the previous two decades. It

is suggested that further progress may be impossible without

a redirection and establishment of a new set of goals in

legislation and local action. It is known that something

needs to be done when one sees rich districts with fine

buildings, and well-balanced educational programs next to

poor school districts with inferior schools, In spite of

maximum efforts of local support. There Is a need in prac-

tically all of the metropolitan and quasi- etropolitan areas

for a complete reorganization of governments and school

-^Cocking, loc . clt .

^"Bigger and Fewer School Districts," X1A ResearchBulletin , 33:15, February, I960.

15

dlstr_ 63. Such programs are the only possible means of

reducing waste and duplication, of eliminating un-needed

officials, of leveling costs and financial inconsistencies,

and of Droviding better uniformity of curriculum and

teaching programs. It is suggested tnat state school

boards re-examine school district organization and develop

legislative measures to promote reorganization within each

state. If state departments will take action and give

leadership to local school boards and administrators, much

can be accomplished, rtore effort should be devoted at the

state and local levels to the work tnat needs to be done

in reorganization and less attention and effort given to

federal aid legislation. 1 '

IV. 0RB4TKR ED'JCATi 0„AL OPPORTUIITIW D JHXD

Many administrators, teachers, and laymen support

the general orinciple of reorganization in a belief that

reorganization will yield greater educational opportunities.

This belief coupled with the remarkable persistency with

which the differences in test results favor reorganized

school districts, shifts the burden of pro* " to those who

oppose reorganization. Studies which compare the achieve-

l^william C. Bruce, "Is District :ieor ranlzationHalted?" American School board Journal . 141:34> December,1960.

16

ment of students In unreorganized districts with tnose in

reorganized districts, have been few in number. Such a

study is being conducted by Burton Kreitlow in the st^te

of Wisconsin, This study matches five control groups from

reorganized schools ,^0 Tne study is in its thirteenth year

and is designed to measure for each of the groups, educa-

tional opportunities, educational achievement, educational

costs, and community social and economic processes, tfesults

of comparative measurement in all areas favor tae larger

reorganized school. In the larger reorganized communities,

children achieve significantly better in basic skill sub-

jects than children in either the small reorganized districts

or the unreor.~ani.zed districts. There is no difference

between the smaller reorganized districts and unreorganized

districts. After considering many studies, authorities

conclude that the preponderance of evidence indicates that

greater academic achievement is more likely to take place

in tne larger and/or reorganized schools. Evidence indicates

that reorganization of school districts does improve educa-

tional opportunity for the children and that the kind of

district in which a child lives toakes a difference in the

caliber of education received. It is apparent from research

20Burton W, Kreitlow, "Reorganization Makes aDifference," NEA Journal . 50:55, ^arch, 1961.

17

that th<= ral theory which sunoorted reorganization aa

a basis of Improving* opportunities has been proved In prac-

tice. Pupil a c hi ev errant has been aided by reorganization.

It Is reasonably clear that reorganized school dis-

tricts provide er ual opportunities at lower cost, howov

reorganization for the purpose of increasing opportunities

and achievement often costs the taxpayer more money, 2 An

effective system of school organization is one which com-

bines maximum econo™ ^ith maximum opportunity for a pro-

fessional level of teaching.

Reports in icate that the larger area provides reater

financial ability oer student. More students require more

teachers with stronger areas of specialization and make pos-

sible a greater variety of academic and vocational course

offerings to -^eet student needs," studies indicate tnat

chances of attracting better teachers in reorganized districts

are significantly greater than for small school districts.

The real startlnr point in any program of school

dist Let reorganization is the decision of the people as to

the kind of educational program tie; need and want, American

^Burton W, Kreitlow, "Organizational Patterns: LocalScnool districts, :l

lieview of education Research, 31*330 f

October, 1961.

22JeForest Hamilton, and Robert N, Rowe, "AcademicAchievement of Students in Reorganized and N on-reorganizedDistricts," Phi Delta Kappan, i+3:i;01, June, 1962.

13

people should desire an educational program of such quality

and scope as to develop Insight, cultural understanding, and

a breadth of vision that will enable different groups to

work together on problems of common interest, Eduoatlon

should break down artificial economic and social barriers

and provide the true ideals of democratic living. The pro-

gram should build up the special interests, aptitudes. d

abilities of each individual, should seek to correct and

remove personal shortcomings and prepare each person to do

the job or fill the position in life that interests him most

and for which he is best fitted. Such an educational program

needs to be developed as a series of closely integrated learn'

ing experiences. It is so vitally related to the people in

all age groups in the community that many of its most impor-

tant objectives may be seriously impaired if various seg-

ments are placed under the control of non-integrated admin-

istrative units, -*

V. REGULATIONS 0OK< ORGANIZATION

There have been many incidents where local manipulat-

ing has occurred so that local school districts would be

eligible to receive state apportionment of monies to pro-

tect districts from being dissolved. As an example, two

2^The National Commission on School District Reorgan-ization, op , cit , . p, 21,

19

districts In Nebraska nave retained their district organ-

ization without providing a public school for a single child

for eighteen years and neither district has levied a tax for

the support of schools since tne scnool year 1923-1929.

Nebraska school law number 79-137 required the dissolution

of districts which did not operate a scnool or contract for

school services for two consecutiveJears, but tnls lav uad

obviously been ignored. In another area, three districts

contracted the same students to each other to receive state

benefits and to retain their status. These are unusual

cases of abuse of school related regulations, however, it is

believed that the majority of the people in the state will,

when in the possession of the facts, accept a program that

means better educational opportunities for their children, ^-

Once several districts lave agreed to reorganize,

there is no turning back. Debate on policy is closed when

voters approve the proposals and cannot be reenacted because

the same or new board members prefer a different program at

a later date. 25 Schoolmen need to acquaint themselves with

the proper laws and procedure prior to reorganization. Laws

2i|Stanley L. Hawley, and Kenneth E, Mclntyre, "Pre-sent School District Organization," Nebraska EducationalJournal , 23:161, Kay, 19^8.

25Lee 0, Garber, "Once a Merger, Always a Merger,District Finds," Nation's Schools , 71:53, June, 1963.

Hit be brought up lo dace to allow areas to reorganize

without infringing on other areas. ^6

One of the most persistent ana perplexing problc |

in American education has been the reorganization of school

districts into acceptable units of administration. Educa-

tion as a function of t/»e state is clearly recognized by

constitutions, statutes, and c^urt decisions. Accordingly,

it is the responsibility of tne people's elected represen-

tatives to proviae an efficient and economical administra-

tive organization for public education which will provide

those educational services txiat are essential to tne public

welfare. 2'

One requirement for a successful scnool uistrict

reorganization program is the enactment of a comprehensive

law which clearly sets forth the procedure for effecting

changes and places responsibility for the program on both

sta e and local levels. In California, a change in the

pattern of school district organization lias occurred since

the responsibility for the study of school district organ-

^"Lee 0, Garber, "Investigate} then Consolidate,"nation 1 a Schools . 72f6ij., November, 1963.

27calvin H. Reed, "Financial Factors Related toSchool District Reorganization," Abstracts of DoctoralDissertations . Doctors Thesis (Lincoln, Nebraska! Uni-versity of Nebraska, 192+9), pp. 136 and li|2.

21

lzatlon was delegated by the le -islature to county commit-

taea in 19l}9. The number of unified school districts has

more than doubled since 19i+9 at which time there were sixty-

two in operation as compared with 155 in 196^.^ Most

authorities on school district organization agree t.iat the

best form of local school r-overnment thus far devised is a

unified district. 29

In 1941* tne llinols legislature provided for a

county survey program which haa advisory powers only. This

program was intended to permit the people of any county in

Illinois to make their own surveys and on the basis of their

findings, determine the type of school district organization

which would provide the best schools for the children of

their county. Only a few counties participated and little

progress was made toward bringing about reorganization. In

19i|5» a more positive school survey act was enacted as a

result of 'ublic demand. The act provided for state subsidy

which paid part of the survey costs. As a result of these

surveys and the people's general desire to improve the

schools, most of the smaller scnools, both elementary and

2^Robert Clemo, and Loren A, Wann, "District Organ-ization Patterns Change," California Education . 1:25,February, 196ij..

29John C. Packard, "School District Size VersusLocal Control," American School Board Journal . 11+6:9,February, 1963.

22

secondary, have disappeared through merger, consolidation,

or partition # 30 Since 191+5, there has been an eighty-six

per cent reduction in the number of school districts in

Illinois.

VI, ACCEPTING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO REORGANIZE

As the people of a community become increasingly

aware of the demands the future will place on their children

and youth as adults, they will realize that the so-called

basic fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic of

the early school curriculum no longer provide adequate

preparation. The fundamental educati orial problem at the

local level is that of providing the best possible educa-

tional program for every child and youth in the area.

Although school reorganization is not the basic problem of

a school district or local community, in many instances, it

is the means and often the only means of making available

minimumly essential educational programs,^!

As through their investigations, the people of a

community come to know and understand the educati oral needs

of their children and the adequacy of their financial

3°George T, Wilkins, "School District Reorganization,"Illinois Education Association , 23:291|, fcarch, 1961.

33-George T, Wilkins, "The Community 1 s Role in Reorgan-ization," Illinois Education . 50:120, November, 1961.

23

resources, they are ready to consider the different available

means for providing the needed educational demands. One of

the means that they will want to consider seriously is that

of uniting their efforts and resources with other school

districts. Consideration of school reorganization in the

li ,.it of all the facts can prove most rewarding and can

result in sound scnool organization through serious and

adequate study on tha part of trie poople of tne community.

In the management of school districts, the size of schools

is a matter of school board policy. Local conditions require

compromises with recommended standards occasionally, and

although there is nothing sacred about recommended standards,

they should be seriously considered as elements in the total

situation. 32 While further school district reorganization

will not guarantee the solution of all problems, it seems

that a more adequate organizational structure would permit

many improvements. Any new district should not be formed

for size only, but should provide educational advantages to

justify tne change. A community should strive for the

optimum size scnool district that will best meet its needs. 33

The lars st school district possible is not necessarily the

32areider, Pierce, and ftosentengel, op,, cit . . p. 16.

33packard, loc . cit .

2k

ideal, however larger school districts usually offer a

richer program of education more efficiently and economic-

ally,^- DeShane described school district adequacy as

follows.

If co petent teachers, administrators and trustees,services which meet the needs of all students, a com-prehensive program at a reasonable cost, and evidenceof superior achievement existed in a school system,there would be little reason to reorganize .35

When the elements listed above are not evident, reorgan-

ization is demanded.

Leadership is urgently needed to successfully

reorganize. Where reorganization efforts have been success-

ful, the vigorous leadership of both county and local super-

intendents has been one of the strongest factors in the

whole process ,3° effective leadership by a school superin-

tendent brought about the successful reorganization of

school districts into one district in Banner county in 1955*

This western Nebraska county was successful in reorganizing

twenty-three school districts.-^' A survey of the county in

I960 indicated that only two per cent of the people are

3^Roy DeShane, "An Effective Intermediate Unit,"Illinois Education Association , 26«205» January, 1961+.

35lbid.

3°American Association of School Administrators,op , cit . , p, 12,

3 'Barclay G, Bayley, "A Banner Victory," 1 1A Journal ,

50:51, May, 1961.

25

dissatisfied with the present organizational structure.

Reorganization of school districts is supported by tnose who

nave experiei.ee the benefits of an expanded and enricned

program. The limited educational program of yesteryear is

attractive to tnose who have an aversion to change and do

not truly understand the educational demands of modern

America. 3->

VII. SUMMARY OP TH1 LITERATURE

The review of the literature on school district

structure in the United States substantiates the validity

of reorganization. Professional leaders in the field of

education support the movement for reorganization of school

districts as a definite improvement in the educational

opportunities presented in the public schools.

Reorganization must be accomplished by local author-

ities with the aid of professional educators and the help

of effective legislation. All people must be concerned with

the Improvement of schools to make the optimum educational

program available without prejudice to race, color, religion,

or pocket-book. People need to understand benefits possible

from reorganization to support it.

3^Roald R. Campbell, and Freeman H. Vaughn, "Reorgan-ization Revisited," Illinois Education Association . 26i249#February, 1961j..

26

Reorganisation of school districts involves the

people of several communities. Their ideas and concerns

should be foremost in the minds of those chosen to initiate

a successful reorganisation program, A concentrated effort

should be made to fully acquaint the people of a proposed

reorganized area with the need for better schools and to

show how reorganization could solve t is problem. Success-

ful reorganization demands an informed public. Comparisons

ust be made and advantages of reorganization publicized to

assure the participation of the citizens.

Evidence from Kreitlow's study indicates that reorgan*

ization of school districts improves educational opportun-

ities for the children and that tne kind of district in

which a child lives nAkes a difference in the caliber of

education which he receives.

Reorganization is governed by laws. It is essential

that all personnel connected with reorganizational programs

keep informed of all rules and regulations pertaining to

school district structure. They further have the responsi-

bility to support legislation relative to effective school

district reorganization. One requirement for a successful

reorganization program is the enactment of a comprehensive

law which clearly sets forth the procedure for effecting

changes and places responsibility for tne program at both

state and local levels.

21

Where reorganization has occurred, effective leader-

ship has been evident. Someone must assume the responsi-

bility to initiate the program and have the stamina and

fortitude to continue with the program regardless of

obstacles encountered. The literature supports reorgan-

ization of school districts as a means of improving schools.

CHAPTER III

i>ETHOD OP PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS

Attitudes of people are an expression of feelings

and thought. This is a report of a study of the attitudes

of the people in Richardson county, Nebraska concerning

reorganization of school districts.

An analysis of the important parts of the literature

provided the material for the formation of the questions for

the interview* The average length of each interview was

approximately twenty minutes and all questions, including

instructions to the interviewee, are shown in the appendix,

pages fifty-nine through sixty-three. All questions were

read by the interviewer. A blank form, as shown in the appen-

dix, page fifty eight, was used for recording responses, and

the responses were analyzed for the purposes of this study*

I. DEFINING THE POPULATION

Vestern half of county . The western half of the

county which Includes an area fifteen miles by eighteen

miles is the site of tnis study. The citizens of this area

have a slightly different organizational problem than that

which exists in the eastern half of the county. The largest

high school in Richardson county Is located at Palls City

which is in the eastern half. People in the eastern area

29

would tend to express different feelings about reorganization

than tnose in tne western half where the largest high school

has only a hundred fifty students. The western half includes

communities which are more nearly the same in size and struc-

ture with school district problems much the same in character,

Population of the Report , Four major communities,

Dawson, Humboldt, Salem, and Stella are in the western half

of Richardson county, and listed in the Southeast Nebraska

Telephone Directory, Within these four communities, 1193

residential telephone extensions were listed in tne February,

1964 directory. Every twentieth residential telephone exten-

sion listed, beginning with the first listing in the Dawson

portion of tne directory and continuing through the Humboldt,

Salem, and Stella portions of tne directory consecutively,

provided the sample for this study, A total of sixty inter-

views was obtained by this procedure, and were completed

between October, 1961j. and May, 1965.

II. LIMITATIONS

Concentration of Population . The population of Daw-

son, Humboldt, Salem, and Stella was greater than the area

surrounding each community. The study revealed that more

telephone users resided in these communities than in tne

rural areas. Therefore, this report reflects a high per cent

of the attitudes of people living in small communities.

IV

THE STUDY

The information obtained fron the interviews is

made up of six parts. F.nch part will be presented sep-

arately.

Some questions from trie interview were not directly

concerned \/ith reorganization of school districts. However,

a response to each question was considered necessary to

better understand the attitudes of the people about condi-

tions that related to reorganization.

The responses to some questions were contradictory.

Of tae population interviewed, seventy-five per cent

believed that better schools were needed in Richardson

county and thirty-seven per cent believed that this could

be acco olisned under the present school district structure.

Seventy-five per cent were also satisfied with the effort

that was being made to improve the educational opportuni-

ties, while a similar per cent believed that better schools

were needed in Richardson county.

I. EXISTING STRUCTURE OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

A school district has a definite physical structure

which makes the educational program possible within its

area of jurisdiction. A school district has boundaries,

31

board members, school buildings, administrators, teachers,

legal and financial rights, and most important of all,

students. Failure to understand this structure and the

relationship of its parts frequently leads to misconcep-

tions as to desirable school district organization.

Information pertaining to the existing structure

of scnool districts, according to this study, is shown

in Table I, page thirty-two. Although a majority of

those interviewed understood the present district struc-

ture, seventy per cent did not believe the people of the

county were sufficiently informed to determine the school

district organization structure needed to make possible

the best education for all children ^nd youth in the

county.

The existing school district organization did not

offer equal educational opportunity to all youth In the

county according to the responses to this survey; however,

thirty-seven per cent of tne people interviewed believed

that the necessary educational programs could be provided

under tne present school district structure. Of the

interview responses, sixty-three per cent, indicated

that maximum use was being made of existing school build-

s, grounds, and teachers. Seventy-seven per cent of

those Interviewed felt the need for more adult education

and favored vocational courses as indicated by the eighty-

32do

O «Hp 25 Cc «4B a.' o

J-i

0) oi.

-

00

CO

0) o -Hfc z co •Ho pCO o

COE-< *OV-l 5

o25

«E- 0Q

CO a>

IH HQJOoac

oCO

fcoM21r—̂*

'

ehafcJXEhco

Cj.:

ME-« >01 ©«-< •H

©

a

©

PFOE

co

do•HPCO

©i

•H C\J COCVi

rH vO IA CO

coco

o CONO

tocm

coH oH

\A\A

s CMOJ

COCM C\J

\ACO CO

«H r-l \A cm vO CO lf\

COCM 2r 3"

UNCO

OvD

COco

v£> CO r- CO sD sO H CMCO rH H CO -d" H lf\ CM

•P ||

1

o c © o dti•H O pj © <«H +5 rH

h CO «H U i O Ti c•p T3E3C +3 O O © O 4303 fc 1U P O O Q* 43 M •h a•H ©• © o «h •H ft o •H p ©TJ J3 -p 3 p

© U 0}

Jh OP i H cd ©

o ©rH •H TJ -P O 0~ © rH m P 1 «H

O 05 OQ !>» «h aJ a 3 Tl ftO O ^P TJ £ •H 0-» ©43 %-i p rH © c; o +3 • N ©o O ed H tH 00 O rH >»43OQ TJ C -P o

© © W OO P •H p © Jh -PO {TJ *• X © > a)

M H E-HC X! o J» © •H © hc Pu JL« P 43 © O 3P •» © © ©•H oooj a 00 TJ Ci <M © c © TJP © <m N © p © 3 O Jh © O CCO a c«h 43 +3 O © p © p c-•H H C -P c CH O © r| « c^« C ©K P C3 «H © Ctj Ti O ©

ITJ fc

© © 3© co !>» fcO © 00 ^ © cJ aj e»OH^H^ © cr43 £ © © © n 43 TJ P© E-POPP fc © -p +3 fi P © +3 .H OA C «H 3 p, bO o e« © > dp P © P 0Q O ra Cl a * 1 J3 H E P o u

Oj «H O 00 >> © fc «H •H W O O B © Jh P>tJ ,CJ O-HO 43 © © T» © •H O o 43 p. ©

§*><H fn P«d -P <*H 43 43 g 43 P 43 o •P

«k- P fl «H -P p 00 © Pp © Vt © © cC © O 3 © o m O to rH © 43 Oeo > 3«H J* > o GO Ch H d i > «HU © TO TJ gj £3

•H £ ©© fl >» d bO o TJ TJ a © C3 Jh

© «H O o © © o •h d p>d c- H © H fc rl<Hrl S "* 43 TJ ^H rH O Wc © © U O O TJ © P rH 9 w o 1 •p d P © THd U XI CD OPH 43 08 <3J :. J I 03 rH © oj 43 TO TJd 43 .H i ^ fl 43 !3 p o E

3 +3 ^ >s O T> 43 ^•H O X «H TJ bOTJ K o d 05 iHO O O P TO C O o a-p aj TJ rH 3 00 © > O Jh Or*»3 !» C TJ >s aj E r-* 2 o >* bDOh 3 © © r-l bOf>> •H O

&O 43

O -P O O X! © r-t O *4-P w 3 43 • • • O Jh oa 0Q Q O P fj Ofl 9 O *H H 43 CO -P *£ CQ o Q P, ©

• • • • • •

r-« CM CO ^t 1A V0

33

Co

43 0«H rvj uG :-; d o CM CO NO ©© •H rHO

odo

Jh ^-i

© o o in o t©a

a, 85 H •H CO rH

©© o

in 3 1TVd

C too d

© O-H «r4

JU f\ Jh

o •H o T-k \J\ -d/ ©o a 43CO o ©

>•Hto

© o55 3 O \r\

rHH ©

Jh

03 ©© CO ro o U\ rH

H H PS IA -~to©a| g rH

T* OH o rH •© O d 4^ © © 43 S-t

d ra o »4 © u ^ >> K oC 43 x! 03 rH Jh © Xi rH o ©«H C o © © 4J H > d Jh

43 © © E C W © d o Vh O «H ©c T3 o © O .H Jh Jh o © (h XIo 3 OS -p t^H C OO|»t0 a d £O 4J

© mCCS

©

+5

© -P -H© E

w o d© *H t4

Jh 43 O >

rH E 43

fl o

dd

M O © n 3 © fr* O £ *H otJh rH\T\r4 «H © 'd © © © © • 4 d ©

3r-l J3 rH © TJ E Om D) 43 CO © d

*l •H a o > d © © d p:r: E u © © E 43 4^ © -P O d 43 o4 TJ o a ©do 5^ ©H rH W

crj

© 43 03

© (h

$H

O*H nHOOHJh *d © Jh

© 43 O ©O Tj 4- O © 43 a <m X!XJ.C a CJ 43 X! n W CM C © © «H 43O -P © © O 43 43 O «H si © ©

> © 3 c>~ xJ t) © c (h bO'H T3 43 E tO a© o © a do© © OCP a ©•H H t» Jh JL, -p *) -P Td *h «H © r-4 X3 O «H 43

> •H O © w © d <M > O O O. 43 43 Jh €*• ©h © w I A O © 43 © Jh 3 o © •H © 43 o© £ -P O O «H © ro Oti H 43 5 © <*H O •H43 CO «H u ©ia d •d ra © o a TJ «H -H •dc O © ©CO © a © -d g o Jh d•H cd © 43 *-i 'd © o C « 43 n © e 43 •H

43 n O Jh CM ^-1 43 CJ © d •H rH ©© © © +1 © r*>-d ,o O © £ 43 e>4 to oj •H ©_c > o C > W H H <m E «H © O a © d d t3 Jh4J © 3 © <D r-t t-i t^ o O U © •H •-( O O

•h «d T3 «H o © xj O 43 t, Cl Jh 43 © .H t-i OrH © 3 #H o c o

41 on ©a ©

© H 45© © 43 43 O a

o © p © H > © © oJh X* C © X> 0<H<h o X! *d © 43 © © O .d >*- M W 03 O o 43 S <M ^•^ d o ©

d o c d OT X! H+3 14 O TJ © Jh

w o o C rH © © J T3 O © Jh >>jd © •

c t>> CM t>>rH *h Tj a rH O 43 43 o o Jh © •o © O © 3 XJ © 43 ©•HO d XI«H O © 0^ o E Jh © £ O O © 9 O Jnfi XJ o

s i+> Q H O a © o- c ~H 2e a E x»ir\ << ^ 4J j>> c00 CI

© •3 • • • Oa r- co o rH 5^

Ik

five per cent "yes" response to question five (C) of

Table I.

Although a trend exists to extend the school tern,

sixty-seven per cent of those surveyed did not favor a

longer school year, as shown In question five (B), Table I.

Sixty-three per cent of the people interviewed believed

that teachers and administrators were equally dedicated

to their profession regardless of the size of the school.

However, the responses to the two questions which related

size of school to quality of education (see Table I,

questions seven and nine) indicated belief that the

larger school could do the better job of educating stu-

dents. The satisfaction with the educational effort

made in the existing structure reflected in the seventy-

five per cent "yes" response to question ten, is not

consistent with other responses in Table I. Responses to

questions three, six, seven, and nine of Table I, page

thirty-two and thirty-three, supported the need for reorgan-

ization. The response to question ten indicated a lack of

support for reorganization.

II. TAX SUPPORT OP SCHOOLS

As evidenced by this survey, the respondents were

not overly concerned about the cost of public education.

Table II, page thirty-five, shows that most respondents,

35go

Paa d

tf O r-i a vO o O ao \Ao ao o

OIV

o

CO

oo

r-i a R S K 3 CO

© r^ o -d- U\ NO o 3 c- t*-

do

vO H c- 3J\ r^ CM 3 rH

o

o^ d

•H a o 00 rH _j. O O \A r^i

o BCO o

3a) o

25 CO o GO 3 » 3 * OJ

CO

<D CO o 5 r^ •H CM vX) co>H rO vO r^ (\J r-i C\i (M r-i

ar-i •«•

1 © P rH 1 Sh

o ft O SU O ft Oo E 1 o. d*. O O O 3 ^H Om at ft >> © >a rH ft 41 © 43do © cH d P P ft O 'O • © 4J

CO U H 43 41 rH © d o d n 3 a rH d OIH d aS © -P o ^ p d d © © O * dH fc O d *-i © tJ o o o © u O ft O >>«H

O CT O 45 © P o T3 O 1-i d .d © © 43{A P © 43 X © l>»0 O e- 43 d ©

a § £ +3 © aS d fl 'd c3 40 2 >» S3 © 3 d t,

o >> k fl © p © o © o C3 41 O p ©-4J o ft ^1 o p © d ro © n d >»-H t* h oilH CW ft © ex «H q-t © d a -d a © p O t3 ©

a, d > a, 41 P O © U E S3 © <^ hC ©P •H ^ P t-< a s t 2 i O O 1 41 H c~cO 4) © •h d **

£ d ©t. E d xs d P © ©

o aS P o o o d <5h d d & dH* 43 H © P 43 k«4 ft-H <5h © © e d o-<ij © 43 Cfn E ox ftrt: t^TJ O ft d •H © OEh TJ k P © O 3 ft d © | © <i-t cr 43

0) fc ft d ft d © fl Vi +3 43 O O «H ©doTJ a! 0) 'd ft d-H •H O © C "^ d h d «" ©© H rH O © © rH O d 43 ©

S <D Sh •H 42 © © 43 O j>» j» d 60 to © ©i c a) d 4!rlP rH rH •H rH CH E rH s d *4 E 41•H ® © e- o © as o O O © r-i © H &» p d p> 43 •d J>j d 60 •H O c 2 O © © © E *d •h aft K JhP © o d £ © 41 5 d d as d O © *H© 1 ro 3 d 41 «H «H 0- a o C! O h © 43 q O f-i © O4-> 43 S3 43 d P P C P aJ © •H « © Ti p d E © rH

d © o as «h k d ^ ft - © 43 d rH »43•H K to K o booro .H %i «5h 43 *-i Cl 43 .H © © U

aS •h aS 51 3 fU ft <M O rA O © O n O E O§ -p +3 +3 © •h "d © ft © ^ -ri •d d * ©«H ftXI

. r* X) (D+J 3 © P Sh -p 43 41 © d ^> aS 4^ > 4> a+5 U O © P •h © a -p © © © S u © d d d © d

© 41 > T3 T3 © o 73 O ^ © ft d p i •H 43 ©73 HPC O © rH P o © o su s © O E *-< d

o i r-1 .H fc " u o © <M S3 © © e © d »• © © rHE o •* aS *-• ft d o o © 2 ^J H p © © «r- {>> 43 © ©<- S* W O 03 © *H 41 © © 43 rH d © © rH © «H

4? r-l XJ i-H »d £ o Ph -P Jh P d O Ti CH45H d fc

H © O H E © 0} o O O T* >> k 41 fc © O ft cg as o d k o d o «h B -w E 43 K p p p i a *» ©O d 2£$ o o © d | u K © © t.p d © cv4 CO c 41 © a} O w o © O © u ** © c d d *h

00

M © to m m CO Sh 43 ^h M P. M O Q P 4 -d rH ft © © Q+Jl-

5 • •

C\J

• A • • • • •

36

• if? fcy Por cent, did not know the proportion of their tax

dollar which was allocated for school support. More than

half of the respondents were not aware of t.ie amount of

money their school district spent annually for education

and approximately half of the people interviewed expended

less money for education than they did for their own enter-

tainment.

People interviewed who did not thoroughly under-

stand a question, normally responded with "no opinion".

This was evident in Table II, questions one and four. In

question oie, twenty-four per cent expressed "no opinion"

and usually stated that they had not understood the question.

Question four was also answered similarly, as respondents

Indicated a lack of knowledge of the present cost of sciiools.

Although nearly a fourth of the respondents expressed "no

opinion" to questions one and four, a majority of those

surveyed expressed support for state financial aid and a

broader tax base. In opposition to additional financial

aid, fifty-eight per cent of the respondents did not favor

federal financial support as evidenced in question five in

Table II, pa<e thirty-five.

To determine the tax support for tne schools, seventy-

four per cent believed that this should be dependent upon

the cost of the best recommended educational opportunities

as shown in question three in Table II.

37

III. EDUCAxIOiikL OPPORTUNITIES D ED II RKIATIoK TO

ALL TuE YOUTH OP flICiiARDbOi. GOUiiTY

To adequately educate all tne youth of Richardson

county, many services, both academic and vocational ahold

be made available. Of the services listed in Table III,

pac;e thirty-eipht, those interviewed responded very favor-

ably to guidance and counseling, and vocal and instrumental

music as necessary services in the schools. Special pro-

grams for the gifted, psychiatric services, and the driver

training program received the least favorable response,

but were still supported by a majority of the respondents.

All services listed in Table III, questions one (/J through

(L), were supported by sixty-six per cent or more of tne

people interviewed.

Nearly eighty per cent of the people interviewed

were in favor of creating districts of sufficient siz:.

to economically provide all the services, as shown in

Table III, to all students within each district. Accord-

ing to the responses listed in Table III, questions three

and four, all districts should make provision for the

education of all students from kindergarten through grade

twelve, or they should be organized with a district that

does or will be capable of making such services available.

Seventy-five per cent of the respondents In cuestion five,

38

oO ^H

43 i c- •M o -4± T) XA U\ -=f CM CM O O CM -d-

(D aO o

fa

c o u\ r>- 00 CO oa, 55

05

CM C\J ^t iH C\J CM XA \A CM OO

J* CO

o CO r4 <T> GO r- B rr\ CO rn O ^t vOX o r- CO c- nO vO O O o H O vO

g<D O «H

O fa a ce-< o

o•Hft

o C\J U> co CO CM r-t rH o O i-» CM

COoM >P-i

o

as o 1A o H C- C30

9

ce

00

CD rO

C\J

CO O r-l

CO

vO

CO O

o

CM rM

qo H U\ J* IA ^h J* J" \A IA to vO IA ^f55M -3a a

-3 Dd T* o;

-sfi09 08M H •H B CDM £5 o 49 CO

Mas

43 CD

.afa

9

a &. O COel

•dCD E-< C 1 CD CD

< >-t X! O j§ d T>Eh

1

irE-«

43 «H3 >O fa

•H43

CD43

fa

0543

O !» © r* •H CD

O >H CO «H bO faft* CD 3a. M 43 W «m <D CD

oC-l

43 aCD Oj

X!43

-C4> i

*j •H fa (L(

•4 ij | r-» o H d XJ fa 00 fa toa O 08 rH ;;i 43 43 O <D O o

O <J «H iH (0 Hs

u O o «M faM > CD O 3 «H •H ftE- fa 43 «M § O m > 00 CQ

< G g o «H 03 0} i fa 3 MO +3 O CD o fa 43 CD

2CD OQ J>i E OS C

b a 2 a to fa O cq O ft fa ^HQ •H T> 43 05 al •H 50 ^ 05 fH to cM CD

*> O o E fa o a5 O •H

© xi r-l r-l fa fa '- O CD >H 43 fa cd

X3 XH at) Cd i a fa C 43 CQ c: ft fa

+3 H 2 CD a •H 0} 43 O 43 CD 43CD O O s fa iH e5 o E E iH

E 43 si c~ c H 43 A 05 •H M 43 3 cd fa

O aJ n CD CO- 43 CQ 43 •H 45 H fa «H CD

fa 3 H T 4 1 r-l >> O O <D CD 05 43 V >C* cr * 43 vl o •d at 43 CD >» E CD O 00 CD •H

« ^ 3 o a CD 3 a, 00 O CU o C ft £00 TJ* 43 iH CiJ p» M Pfl -d CO ft* W CO > M COa) C H

o !3 g*H O O >4300

Eh O flj <fi CQ o Q M fc o tc M •-* w JCD

2 •

c* H

39Go

O t443

c55 C

t4 00 ^h 4 H a<D p-

O o

U© o U\ t+\

a(X. 55 H o o r-K

09

© K« vO o u\ ro

dooh

s o^ CT* r^ h-

©k as co H U\ <\J cm K» Oo &D]

>

o

© occ

©

o

CO

00

3tH -d" u\ U\ -=t-

<d

dC•H H

©•d

r-l

o c-P H G G H H © ©

§<h aj n O H 43 P I >O -P H ,* » © ql

© 43 43© d >»©

o © G © Co© p U 43*-< 00 d © H E d © 43 43 o d ft o c B i

43 H d > o © H o w d o 43 -J o t.M o > 3 o P. E ft43 d d © rH O P. 43M H O P P. <H 1 H n b © 43 O ft ©M P* P* oa ft >* O H © G > o «H

^•p a© H © -P

H O ti43 P ff

43 © ©o d

© GO O

© G> -

J H |>sH id G G © © h •H 43 tt TO-H 1" -dn ai © © © H J* TC P W ftd © -d<* H W SDd © h -d ft u C ©Eh © cd o 3 c- © G C 2 © "3 ©

-P O +3 CO 4-2 © S«4 © •H © 43 -dOS H -P M > ft M <-t a G 43 O © ©© £ © O r-l © 43 O d 43 © H fc >

| u o © H H © P<hP © C © © 03 ft o© O G O h H > O Ch H © TJ © G 43 i uH O H -P © +> G O 5 r © d 43 G O ft

tG o >O © Ih

c^ © 43 © d © t4 O E4-3 H en © ©43-d © G P O ^ H

© •H © o d O T H O © ftfr* DO 43 43 © ©4J P O 00 «H © G K> © © CO |H ti TJc * -P p* H G P. G T-l O r- r-l © H c o

E §H N fcO-P O O W) owe 43 o d © o o•HOG ro O H H 43 © © © O «H d e*« •4 43

© G N —' H 43 P 43 W O tfl 43 H 43 > a" © 43 O © '

43 U-H OTJ O OS OB H H U H o O © o © CO d '

43 M © &o w o a > ^ OH © © f-i «H M «H »HPi © 43 1 O O 43 H > ft >> Ph •H © > ^ C>-

E o p k o H ds

(4 0} OH © k p © C43 O O ftO ©CO a< r-l © ftH 43 3 © O T-t E © 43 ^ 3-HK Pi © *H © © 43 d © 4J 43 C *£ B ft P^ 43c «H © 43 E k © 43 d JU © 43 «

-do© G G o d © O O © J>»43 G o > O © Pi

on H h 43 H rH -P © 3H f< •H 43 43 U tH © O 43 C ©c 3 <M 43 43 2 +> © d bO « > G O © b C-. «H T3O O <^ 43 O P,

aO O © u © d ft'd ftXlH 43 d <H •r-4 43 O «H 43 & o © U O ft o W F c ^ ©

P©

CO © O > CO •* U) m w ftd m <J o o E M .H ed OH©3 • • • • •

C\J r^ .* U\ nO

supported the need for better schools In Richardson county

and seventy-three per cent, as shown in que~t*on six,

supported reor.^anizat * on as the best approach to make this

possible.

IV. R .ORGANIZATION RELUCTANCE

In section four of tais study, an attempt wa3 made

to determine the extent tradition and community loyalty

affected reorganization thinking. A "no" response in

Table IV, page forty-one, questions one (A) through (£),

Indicated that the particular area of concern would not

interfere with the respondents support of reorganization.

Most attitudes surveyed In this section showed very

little opoosition to reorgan ? zation. According to Table

IV, pafre forty-one, the greatest opposition was shown in

the responses to question one (F). Fifty-eight per cent

felt that Inadequate transportation facilities, which were

not sufficiently developed to comfortably transport children

distances that might be required by reorganization, would

cause the respondent to be reluctant to support reorgan-

ization. Transportation was a greater concern than losing

the local control of the school, losing trie school in a

district, increased taxes and decreased community partici-

pation in the schools. Over eighty per cent, in question

one (E), Table IV, did not think that decreased parental

lj.1

3CO<Eh

4*

aij

©

CD

fa

oVBQ

©

Mom<6

>

co

O «H-. d•ho\o

o

01

Hco

O «H2! C

•H

o

o

CO

©

M

ME5

oO

©

>m©Pc

si-p

EOuCm

n

8•HP01

CD

S

Cm O TJO P m

103 -

© « oCD © «H

at os d

G CD—< m 01

* pO CD Or4 £> «-*

H faOOPCm P ©

pp2p

o

OI O

a

CD

-=t sO C\J

OvO J*

C\J O COcv

HCVJ

CVJ oCO

or-t

COUN

CVJ -^ H

3

oo.ao0}

CO

o

ofa

coo

cd

oo> TJ .G

© iH Pr-< O © >» t0© 3 N P 2,0 «H C «H

£3O ©!» o

O

C 3 CO

CO O OM o Jfao c© o •

r^ o

Po•Hfa

-P©

fa

9o>»

a•h

HOOMo03

©

bO

©O4

OQ

©

8cd

-P

©

GO

©fa

oG

vO

3CVJ

oo.au01

cio

pOS

pfa

cd

>>p

E

oo

©CO

CO

©fa

o©

O1A

sO

G©

E

o

ao

©oG©

iH<mG

as

•PG©fa

a)

a

©©a)

©fa

o©

C\J

CV

UN

sio•H

n©

i

i-1Ep

©op•d ©© f=ao P

*-i H ©© A> p©

©

o ca ©© «Hc o© «H

Offi*

CO•HPa

©

©

©P©3

Co•HP©N•HC©

o©

© tJ ^3

CT C©

©

©c

P 3tn ao ©a m

W Pc.

1*2

influence on children would be a major factor in influencing

the attitude of people in supporting a reorganization program.

Although some opposition was evident, as indicated by the

"yes" responses in Table IV, the "no" responses to questions

one (a) through (E), indicated no major problem areas that

would be of special concern to the respondents in the sup-

port of reorganization.

V. REORGANIZATION SUPPORT

In section five of this study, areas of improvement

made possible by reorganization of school districts were

used to determine the extent the people of this area would

support reorganization. The responses to the questions in

Table V, page forty-three, indicated the degree to wiiich

the respondents believed the advantages of reorganization,

as supported by the review of the literature, would be

evident in a reorganized school district.

According to the responses recorded in Table V, page

forty-three, question one, seventy-eic-ht per cent of the

respondents believed th-t a higher quality of professional

leadership would be available in the reorganized schools.

The respondents favored all questions in Table V, at or

above, the seventy-einht per cent level, except question

six. Questions one through five of Table V, indicated that

the respondents supported reorganization in the area

pc

ofa

CDft*

IoO -H25 c

p.

o

ooco

ft

oa

os

QPfa

CO

o

I>H

c:o

OtHz c

«Hco

o53

CO

0)

dOSo

5•H>faCD

c

©43•p

Eofa<^

CO

cc

Pco

0)

o

43

CM

CD

vO

tr\

CO

co

CO

CO CO

CO

OJ

iH 09

CMCO

"LA

-d-CO

u\

CM

-d-

r-l ^lAr- r-t H vO u\ CM

h- vO K- o o ~n-d- U\ -^T ^ j\ CM

t>»c^•P S

i p "32fa H dCD cd c i ^5 1

•d§

«H CO P oas O fa fa

i •H •Hi

o aH 0) «H a.CD CO V4 +> • r-i

r-< fa © e- CD o aa) O *H CO CO aC E O -P CD g fl oo fa c fa cd -H•H CX co o 43 o* -J

co c*~ H • <£ E o 'd CO 7i

CO CO 4> +> CD d d CD •P oCD «H •h a fa+J cd CO N d d

«>-1 O CO CD co mi cd -do o CO E d co E fa CD

fa43 o a rH fH CD - cd

a o a«H TJ r-< cd C*- o C a cd

CO ^ a Cd p co •H «H«~

*

l«f cd cr 1 Q CD

Ee CD -J

O © .« CD o •H O >43 cd •d-p cd fa CD CD -r4 +3

^P Ed o E d CO o-p a •H CD o CD

•H C d rt «rt r-» d CO 4h CO d faH -H o •H JD o CD o C O «H

i •H CO r-i a •H fa •H •h 'dd cd -P to Cfl f-l -P CJ P pCTH cd d d«H Cd rH O «H cd dA N «H cr cd i cd T-l f-l ta G

S-. as •H T3 > •H •H +3 «H •h cd

CD H CH fa cd c o cd u dX! *H cd «H CD cd fl o cd cd c

cd u P CD b0 cd •-1

c>-» bO cd

43 cd

U I -P 43 (4 c r-i fa i-*

O CD O «H a c: O P.'- CD 43 CO CD 4-1 d o o

di CD fa p fa K •d ^i fa a4> al T) CD <M p H

4 -d 3 i-l X •d o d cd d CD

H a r-l CP d a r-4 «H 4J iH 433 .H 3 CD O 3J d CD fl t< d043 O T3 43 CD o CO o o o o9 cr. .3 cd CO -P S d s a 5 +3

CM r^ -d- u\ v£)

kk

questioned and that reorganizat on would make possible the

advantages shown In the questions. Approximately half of

the people Interviewed believed that reorganization would

give parents an opportunity to help plan and direct the

educational program as shown in Table V, question six. A

higher per cent of the respondents registered "no opinion"

to question six than to the otner questions in this section.

This response usually indicated a lack of understanding a

particular question or the respondent did not feel suffi-

ciently informed to register a "yes" or "no" response.

The area of greatest support to reorganization was

indicated in question two of Table v. Ninety-three per

cent of the respondents believed that reorganization would

make possible more adequate buildings and equipment.

VI. PROPOSALS PO:l CONSIDERATION

Questions from the interview in this sect' on concern

proposals, both stale and locally initiated, that might be

considered in planning for reorganization. In question one

in Table VI, pap-e forty-five, seventy-ei ht per cent of the

respondents believed that a survey sho Id be taken of the

existing school systems to determine if a change in school

district reorganization would be justified in comparison

with recommended educational specifications. Questions two

and three of Table VI, supported the need for the formation

kSC!

OO «H

p 2; G COG «4 vO O \A •H CM eg UN© DO O

© O xO vO O u\ c^fc 25 H r4 v\ •H m r^ O

©© QQ * g

rn r^ \A UNXG

•*-»

r*- >o sO O O

©i. .3 dO «H -d- O cv CO rH rH r*No aCO

5i O m rH

r-t SI ^ O

S3 © C*- rH -=* rH ao O r>-O .x -^ U\ \A -^f n <n a>

©

irH 1 d 0- © 1 p

a n tc •H © jm •H S-| ©9rd GG "d c^

© G > N TO © TO O © >•^ © 1 E? «H O -< Co C fl G E >»M u to to ,0 aJ u d ^ G ^ H G POP

M CO ro i-< -h G HO^ a© X) O O a g O G> ' fc t> d 0"h O tt. © O f-l © TO <D j-> iM Q as t-I JU T3 c jl, -d p JH © E HCd O G -G C.P © © £r) p 3*1 © O3 •H O f O O 30 © «m TO © P «H

ti P 09 O O £> © TO >> © k O TO © © Sh<* o TO O -H A P © r-i © -G P «H Q,

O -G ©p

B fe, •H G <~ rH P r*> C P & O OHO TO t,

« «H G*-« O p d <s © P p «h d G p -d a4

© «H O O © C O «H H © C TO ©© © £2 P 3 O fc •H TO P © O t3 © JG h

4 © bed 0, a) a © P TO bO b "drH P p ©CO JG G © © TO © > O ^ O d aj Go p © *-» •H

r>iP c~a ju

^ *> .a© «H CU O ^H

J3 ©©OPP J^ TO

>> O43 -t

o *-t O .H © P TO t>> 0, © P P fri TO O TO P09 O P G C © p \^ © -d ro 1 «H © •d ©K © CO O d > G TJ © «H =M O G Jh *JG ©

* G 2 «H O G d C 'd©TOw E -d p «^ +> <o +* u d

© © $H ««-3-P O «H rH TO M -1 *d«H JsJ «H OS G fc © t< © (XT) ^ ^ O d ©> ocS wo k X © © © X U «H © ^§ w CTh P © «H d O H TO © n -d %4 d J3 © © «-.

© G TJ r-» •H +3 t* «4 P en *d rH f-J-d up © f-t G © © © G P P TO © 17 cd t< O fc, ©G ,0 E © 3 -p •H «H G •H © rH © P OOP © a•H ^ .H 5 P G E O O c« G > TO Xi © x: © © ,o *d

>> © 4J © -p *-• Gw O TO O tH •H © TO t. .-: K© © P © "d *H P O O © E E P bO © TO © TO ©-G r» © N C £ G O -d © c G ©rH -d O r-l rH -d-P E O TO P © •H ©

© ©H4J « c

d C E O OT) TO bed P O © 'd O ©E to O © E O © •h a, d G © G © © c^> a pO P bO O © Si © a? «H P «H 43 -O TO > © G O TO

b a) t. aj p G .p © ,a "v-i TO P xo f-A*A X) O TO

<H (73 O © J* rH 0) O P •H C-d c d-Or •d TO d © 'd -d -h © © >>P Xi ~-i

Ci H P rH © a? H-d P r^ f4 H «H (h JG «H P © r4 ©G 34JOJ2 d e c d ^ •-» H d d > p P x> *4 O ItO to «r-i p u O © O © O O TO •H r-4 d•H J ^t^-H si •H £ O m O .G a J3 f4 -H %H G -H " si ©P CO © P > to <- P co ,g © p CO » co P.'d M —( JO © CO

©3 • • • • • • •

(51 •H (VI f\ J9> UN NO p-

1*6

Pc

M©I

o «Hx, d

•r-t

cx|

o

tU

o0]

©

-d©3d

8

OI

o

o

>

©+3

|A

csu

U

ga•h

li

o

rn

U\

CO

o

I

I

I I

C\J

CO O 1 1 I 1

r*- O a H NOj$r IA C\i O H

-dH © ©o fa n 1

fa o •H fa ^» C!O 43 4-> QJ tH «H

•d O H <u o CJ > 3 CJ

© §^ JJ O © © O fa 6-P o O d © c« 43© (4 CO »-) © 43 C~ •H C!4: ©d CJ 00

© O o» XJ C d CO

K fa

o © 43 OS © r-l

e ** © r-l fa «h •H Cl CO ^-J. T3 43 © O OH CtJ od E O O 43 « ,C © 43 O

43 © «H d 43 fa © a 43 49 U M © fa O 43O 43 £3 O u © fa CO CJ o •r-4 1 © d O © 5 acl d •H •H 4-3 C~ 3 © © © fa

o ©<M > 43

oo •P ^5 © © 43 fa CO $-( 43 43 «Ho c fa a) d fa O © CO CO M fa 43 +3 43 &ri o o o d

m 3 3 © U -H •H i b0© O © 43•H © 1 •hC+j fa ft43 -d 1 C43 •H ^ ^H ^3

P4J ^ -d •H O 4-> © GJ •H ? fa 43 3 43

jq o -d© Pf*S

09 43

© •© WX!

oi

i•H CQ

43 00

CO i-l £r-4

©•P «H Ci +5 3 O 43 43 O H 43 CO 43 4* 0$ rH •H C O E

CO O +3 w O «H C! «H 43 O *d «H »rH © *•W «r-» >> O «H -d •H 43 T3 k c 2 E 43 rH T343 O M ,© © -P fa c i a< © d H 43 © ^ a © ©O © rH © <M o 43 M O 43 fa © c^ etf o CJ © fa 'd•H ft O © JO «H H +3 3 E 1 CO D © j © •fa m o •P fa fa •H H 43 E © c a,

c3 CJ

m-p 43 4-3 O -P tl • O © O O C 43 t>» £g° rHW r-4 O fa ••-> B0 t»*M > 3 o o o t. a•h cd © bC C H 4 © Sh © ctf cj O © © © 60

-d d q <^ ETi O c © «H 43 fa * © 43 <M 43 43 rH fa o6 h •H O 3 r* H W h 43 a O © aH ^-1 «H t3 00 © r-4 X! O 43 © 3 4> * <b 2<HH O £ o

O 43 © •H © jc o o o JO 43 o g 43 E1 S P, A t» fa

O ctf X! > •H 43 O v^ O >> 9 © © }>* E o o,43 O 43 O 43 -d

BO 3 ^-i © i-» }»o w n

O 3 ttr) Cv O •d O Sh tj a S © -3 43 o © faCD 'd © ft a 43 © © © K4I r-t H C 43 d ©

© CO 3 43 t c 3 © t3 3 3 © •H 42T3 O -d +3 t» © CO ?* O O .H o jQ •C c O O i3 «H © 43rH © r-» H fa +3 fa © s

Q -d m 43 43 aJ 3 O-P 43 43 o3 -P o 3 O g 3 K l>»O 00 O ft 3 -P bOOH43 43 O ,3 ft O 3 3 •H c • • • •

CO CO -P CO O O <-, CO cc o < CQ u

•

CO•

•

orH

of a county com ittee or school board by eighty-four and

ninety per cent of the respondents, respectively. This

board would continually investigate the educational needs

of the co.inty, and keep tae citizens li .formed as to changes

sidered appropriate to tneir findings. Nearly seventy

per cent of those interviewed believed state monies should

be m de available to encourage reorganization. A smaller

;ajority, as shown in question five in Table VI f pa^e forty-

five, indicated that the Nebraska legislature should pro-

vide the leadership to reorganize school districts and set

deadlines for such action. In question six in Table VI,

approximately two-thirds of those interv : ev:ed approved of

delegating the responsibility to reorganize to the state

department of education if the local districts did not take

the initiative. Although the majority of the people inter-

viewed supported both proposals, approximately one-third of

the respondents voiced opposition to questions five and six

of Table VI. This reaction may have indicated a desire to

limit outside interference concerning reorganization

proble us.

A great majority of the respondents favored state

educational requirements, according to question seven of

Table VI. In the same Table, question ei^ht, seventy-eight

per cent of the respondents supported action to close school

districts if state educational specifications could not be

U3

met. As evidenced by responses to question nine In Table

VI, pa -e forty-six, ninety-eight per cent believed tut

provision for the best educational opportunities for the

ith In Richardson county should s e a major fa.; tor In

determining future school district structure,

1 the four choices listeJ in Table VI, page forty-

six, question ten (A) through (D), a co nty two district

structure received the greatest support, A one county

district structure received the least support, with twenty-

t,iree per cent contending that the present structure was

satisfactory. Other proposals w re considered and the

responses recorded in question ten (i>), in Table VI, A

three district structure in the county was most frequently

suggested. Greatest support for the three district proposal

was received in the Stella community, A movement was under-

way to form one district in the Stella community and sur-

rounding area with the suggestion that the remaining part

of the county be divided into two districts, Although no

proposal described in question ten in Table VI received a

majority of support, nearly eighty per cent of those

res onding, suggested a change in the structure of school

districts in western Richardson county.

CHAPTER V

THE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Better educational opportunities are needed to

adequately educate the youth of Richardson county, Nebraska.

Some respondents Indicated a desire to make this possible

under the present school district structure. However, most

of the people Interviewed supported a reor anizat on of

school districts to provide tao educational opportunities

demanded by modern America,

I. TJE SUMMARY

This study revealed that a majority of the people

understood the existing school district structure, however

seventy per cent believed that trie general public would be

unable to i prove the structure. Professional leadership

would then be necessary to make reorganisation possible.

A majority of those interviewed believed th^t tne present

school district organization should be changed to offer

equal educational opportunity to all youth.

Very few of the people surveyed, twenty per cent,

were aware of the amount of money needed to support the

scnools. Less than half of the people were aware of the

amount of money expended annually for education by the

school district in which they lived.

50

more equitable taxing program was suggested from

o responses to tils study. Although, mont people were

not aware of their Individual tax load to support ,

nearly el ;hty per cent belie /ed that the citizens of the

county did not assume equal snares In the financial support

of schools at the present time.

To adequately educate all the youth In this county

,

:iy s rvices should be '^de available. This survey indi-

cated a favorable sup ort for all services including guidance

and counseling, vocational agriculture, industrial arts,

health services with a full time nurse on duty, special

programs for the gifted ^ncj retarded, psychiatric services,

home economics, speech therapy, vocal and instrumental

music, and driver training. It was su^ested that reorgan-

ization should create districts of sufficient size to

economically provide lueh services. A district which was

not able to provide such services sho <1^ ?e organized

with a district that was or would be capable of making such

services available, Reorganization was considered the best

approach to achieve improved schools in Richardson county

and to provide rrore comprehensive prorra^s of instruction

and improved administrative leadership.

Although very little effort has been made to reorgan-

ize the school districts in Richardson county, most seople

interviewed seeded to understand the significance of

51

reor -inlzation. They were aware ttr.t sorco sacrifices

would be necessary to mike oosslble a bettor school system*

Closin-* the local school md Increasing taxes would not nave

lnpeded reor sanitation efforts. The greatest concern

involved transportation and the facilities considered

necessary to comfortably transport children distances that

might be required by reorganization.

This study revealed that the attitudes of the peo; le

interviewed supported the advantages of reorganization of

school districts. A majority of the respondents believed

that hi -her quality of professional leadership would be

available in the schools through reorganization. Ad tional

support was voiced in the belief that better buildings and

ip^ent, better cnallfied and nore professional teachers,

more efficient use o*1 financial resources, and minimized

duplication of services would be possible.

Responses of the study shoved that local effort should

be instigated to determine if reorganization is needed and

to what extent the school district structure should be

changed. State help should be m -de available, both in

money d leadership, to assist in initiating reorganization

prograis. The findings of this study indicated that school

districts whose schools did not meet state education speci-

fications should be forced to close their schools and

reorganise, Only twenty-four per cent of tne respondents

believed the present district structure was satisf )

.

Most respondents favored two dist^ici-s in tne county, 0119

for the east and one for the west, each maintaining one

high school and elementary schools where needed,

II. til CONCLUSIONS

The people surveyed were sufficiently Interest-.

in Improving the schools of Richardson county, Nebraska

to justify a change In the school cil?:trict structure.

al tdaeational opportunity and equ 1 support of the

schools was found to be needed in Richardson county.

Reorranlzation of school districts was considered the b st

approach to improve the schools.

Inadequate transportation facilities were considered

a major concern relative to support of a reorganization

program. In otner areas of attitude measurement, strong

support was indicated for reorganization of school districts.

State and local leadership should be initiated in

future planning for reorganization. If the local effort

fails to take the initiative to reorganize, state leader-

ship and legislation should be available to bring about

effective reorganization of school districts in Richardson

county, Nebraska.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

5k

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A . BOOKS

Burton, William H. The Guidance of Learning Activities ,

New York! Appleton, Century, and Crofts Inc., 1962,

Chisholm, Leslie L. School District Reorganization .

University of Chicaro: Midwest Administrative Cen-ter, 1957.

Good, Carter V. Dictionary of Education . New York:draw-Hill book company, Inc., 194-5

•

Greider, Calvin, Truman Pierce, and William Rosentengel.Public School Administration , new York: Ronald Pressc o Mpany, 1961.

""

Reramers, H.H. Introduction to Opinion and Attitude reasure -

raent. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954«

B. PERIODICALS

Alford, Robert R. "School District Reorganization andCommunity Integration," Harvard Education Review ,

nu-ber k$ 30 1 350-371, Pall, I960."

Bayley, Barclay G. "A Banner Victory, fl National Educa-tion Association Journal , 50:51-52, May, 1961.

"Big-er and Fewer School Districts," National EducationAssociation Research Bulletin, 33:15-17, February,

Bruce, William C. "Is District Reorganization Halted?"American School Board Journal , lip. 134* December,1956":

Campbell, Roald F. "Feelings are Facts in School DistrictReorganization," Nation's Schools . 57*53-60, March,1956.

Campbell, Roald P. , and Freeman H, Vaughn, "ReorganizationRevisited," Illinois Education Association . 26:2q.9-251,February, 196ij..

rr

5

Clemo, Robert and Loren A. Wann. "District OrganizationPatterns Chan re, " California Education . 1:25-27,February, 1961|«

Cocking, Walter D. "School District Reorganization,"Overview , 2:62, June, 1961,

Dawson, Howard A. "The Reorganization Story Throughoutthe Country," National Education Association Journal .

48x11, November, 1939.

DeShane, Roy, "An Effective Intermediate Unit," IllinoisEducation Association . 26:205-203, January, 1964.

Faber, Charles. 'Measuring School District Quality,"American School Board Journal . number 4, lij.9J 11-12,October, 196*4..

Oarber, Lee 0. "Once A Merger, Always A Kerger, DistrictFinds," Nation's Schools . 71:53, June, 1963.

(Tarber, Lee 0. "Investigate; t .en Consolidate," Nation 1 s

Schools . 72:614., November, 1963.

Hamilton, DeForest, and Robert N. Rowe, "Acade ic Achieve-ment of Students in Reorganized and N on -re organizedDistricts," Phi Delta Kappan . l4.31i4.Ol-l4.Oi4., June, 1962.

Hawley, Stanley L. , and Kenneth E. ldntyre, "PresentSchool District Organization," Nebraska EducationalJournal . 23:161-162, May, 19l|-3.

Keppel, Francis, "Want Our Schools to Improve with aGreat Restless and Compelling Urge," Education Digest .

29:5-7* September, 1963.

Kreltlow, Burton W. "Organizational Patterns: LocalSchool Districts," Review of Education Research .

31:330-392, October, 1961.

Kreltlow, Burton W. "Reorganization Makes a Difference,"National Education Association Journal . 50:55* March,190T;

Packard, John C. "School District size Versus LocalControl," American School Board Journal . 114.6:9-10,February, 1963.

Shultz, John 0. "Fewer, Bigger, Better," National Educa -

tion Association Journal . 14.3:10 and 13, November, 1959.

56

Wllkins, George T. "School District Reorganization,"Illinois Education Association , 23:293-296, Farch,19ST.

Wllklns, Creorpe T. "The Community 1 3 Role in Reorganization,"Illinois Education Association . 50:120-121, November,19^1:

C. GOVERN KEVTAL PUBLICATIONS

American Association of School Administrators. The Pointof Beginning t The Local School District . Study onSchool District Reorganization. Washington, D.C.:Department of the National Education Association,1953.

National Commission on School District Reorganization.Your School District . Washington, D.C.: Departmentof Rural Education, 194 3 •

D. DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS

Parley, Melvin W. Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations ,

Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1953*

Reed, alvin H. Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations .

Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 191+.9.

APPENDIX

) BIANK

53

ane Address

3*j

Yea : No : No opinion Yea : i«o ! 11 o opinion1 : : : 33: :

2 : : : 3U.J ; :

3 : : : 35: > • i

> • (kill 36: X

5 : : : 37: :

6 : : : 33:

7 : : : 39: : :

3 : : : k0\9 : : : ill:

10: : : k2t11: : : U3:12: : : 1m:: : :

13: : : hS\Ik: : : U6:15: : : li7:

16: : : ii3:

17: : | ,k9:13: : : 50: : :

19: : : 51j20: : : 52:211 : : 53:22: : : 5k:23: : : 55:2k: : : 56:25: : : 57: : :

26: : : 53: :

27: : : 59: : :

23: : : 60 :A : :

29: : : j:B : :

:C 2 :

ID : :

30: : :

31: : :

additional Comments

lumbers one through sixty of this form correspond tothe questions as listed In Tables I through VI consecutively.

59

aVIEW

Instructions , The information gathered from answers

to the following questions concerns attitudes a --out school

district structure and reorganization of school districts

in Richardson county. You are recu^sted to respond "yes",

"no", or "no opinion", to each auestion. Thirteen minutes

are required to read all questions and the cuiclmess of

your resnor.se will determine tne length of the interview,

I. EXISTING STRUCTURE OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

1, Do you understand the exist inr school district structure?

2, Do you believe that most people of Richardson county aresufficiently infor ed to determine the school districtor^anizat Lonal structure nc. .,cd to make possible thebest education for all enliven and youth in the county?

3, Do you believe the present school district organizationoffers equnl educational opportunity for all youth inthe county?

Lj., Is ^axi^ur use being made of existing school buildings,-ounds, teachers, etc,?

5, Should schools be more extensively utilized throucrh-A, adnlt education?B, extended school term?C, vocational courses?

6, Do you believe that the necessary educational programsen be provided under the present school districtstructure?

7, Do you believe a small school of 50 students or less caneducate its youth as well as a scnool of 200 students ormore?

3, Do you believe teachers and administrators in smallscnools of >0 students or lesa are as professionally

60

8. (continued) dedicated to the educational needs ofchildren as teachers and administrators in schoolsof 200 students or more?

9. Woulu bht co"Dined efforts of two or more smallschool districts serving 200 students or more,meet tne present eaucational neeas of youth bett rtnan one school district serving o ly >0 or fewerstudents?

10. Are you satisfied witn tne eduoatlo til efiortwhich is being made to maintain ana ir-prove tneeducational offerings for the youtn in your schooldistrict?

II. TAX L>uhK>2tT OP SCHOOLS

1. Is a broader tax base needed to support our schools?

2. Should all citizens bear a relatively equal shareof the tax burden in the support of schools in thecounty?

3. Should providing the children with the best recom-mended educational opportunities be the basis fordetermining the nu ber of tax dollars for schoolsupport?

4* Is more state financial support needed to support thecost of schools in Kichardson comty?

5« Is more federal financial support needed to supportthe cost of schools in rticharhson county?

6, vo you Know tne per cent of your county ana: local taxdollar wnich is allocated for school support?

7« Are you aware of the amount of money your schooldistrict spends annually for education?

3. Is the amount of money you spend for school supportless than the amount of money you spend for entertain-ment, including liquor and tobacco, annually?

9« Do you believe all citizens in the county, at I:he pre-sent time, assume an equal share in the financial sup-port of the schools?

61

III. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES i . J IN R , IONTO ALL TnE YOUTH OF RICHARDSON COUwTY

1. To adecuately educate all fcht yo -th of this county,should trie following services be made available?A. Guidance and counseling

B. Vocational agriculture

C. Industrial arts

D. Health services with a full time nurse on duty

E. Special programs for the gifted

P. Psychiatric services

Home economics

H. Speech therapy

I. Vocal Kusic

J. Instrumental music

K. Special programs for the retarded

L. Driver training program

2. Should reorganization create districts o^ sufficientsize to economically provide all of tne foregoingservices to all students within each district?

3. Should all school districts make provision for theeducation of all students from kindergarten throughgrade twelve?

4. If such provision is not presently made, should dis-tricts not offering a complete program be organizedwith a district that uoes or will be capable of makingsuch services available?

5. Are better schools needed in Richardson county to pro-vide students with an educational opportunity equal totne needs developed in modern America?

6. Is reorganization the best approach to I -prove the schoolsin Richardson county and to provide more comprehensiveprocrams of instruction and impro.ed administrativeleadership?

62

IV. REORGANIZATION RELUCTANCE

1. Do you ! elieve that the following areaa of concernwoula cause you to be reluct mt to reorganize theschool districts in Richa -dson county?A. Losing local control of tho school

B. Losing the school in your district

C. Increased taxes

D. Decreased community participation in schools

. decreased parental influence on children

F. Inadequate transportation facilities which were notsufficiently developed to transport children dis-tances that may be required by reorganization

V. RBQROAII m SUPPORT

1. Would a higher quality of professional leadership beavailable in the schools?

2. Would reor anization make possible more adequatebuildings and equipment?

3. Should better qualified and more professional teachersbe available to all students?

ij.. Would reorganization maintain a more efficient use offinancial resources?

5. Would duplication of services such as transportationfacilities be minimized?

6. Would reorganization give parents an opportunity tohelp plan and direct the educational program?

VI. PROPOSALS FOR CQNSIU NATION

1. Should a survey be taken of the existing school systemto determine if a change in school district organizationis justified in comparison with recommended educationalspecifications?

63

2. Should a co-r^lttee or county school board be forred tocontinually Investigate the educational needs of thiscounty?

3. Should t. Li comrittee and/or county school board keepthe citizens of the county informed as to cnani.es con-sidered appropriate according to its findings?

4. Should state monies be made available to provide specialincentives for districts to reorganize?

5. Should the legislature of the state of Nebraska providethe leaders? ip to reorganize school districts and setdeadlines for such action?

6. If the local school districts do not take the Initiativeto rpor^anlze, should this responsi Ility be delegatedto the st;ite department of education?

7. Should schools of the county be required by the state tomeet certain standards of educational proficiency?

3. Should school districts that do not meet state educationalspecifications be forced to close their schools andreor anize?

9. Should schools providing the best educational opportuni-ties for the youth in Richardson county be the majorfactor in determining future school district structure?

10. Suggested school district structure in dichardson county.Indicate a response to only one of the following.

A. Do you believe that tne present scaool districtstructure is satisfactory?

B # Woold you recommend two districts in trie county,one for the east and one for tne west, each main-taining one high school a. id elementary schools whereneeded?

C. Would you for-r one district for the entire countyw" th one administrative head over the completeoperation with two centralized high schools andelementary schools maintained where needed?

D. Other proposals -

A STUUY OP TiiE AT t'LOPLL IN iUCdARDSONCOUNTY hi^BHASAA CONCERN I QROAHIZATIOi

SCHOOL Di..

by

LOUIS JAY KUTXHfcUS

B.M.E., Kansas University, 1953

AN ABSTRACT OP A MASTER'S REPORT

submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

MASTER OP SCIENCE

College of Education

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITYManhattan, Kansas

1965

Many school districts continue to retain their

identity in Richardson county, Nebraska even though some

districts do not operate a school or have enough students

o warrant continued operation. Reorganization of school

districts in this area has been very limited as indicated

by the fact that fifty school districts w^re still ident-

ified during t e I96I4.-I965 school year. The county is

small enough both in size, approximately eignteen miles

wide and thirty-one miles long, and population, approx-

imately 15*000 people, to warrant some reduction in the

number of districts. According to the literature, such a

reduction of districts would be feasible and should also

improve educational opportunities for the children and

youth within the county.

In an attempt to explore attitudes and understand

the people relative to reorganization of school districts

in Richardson county, a survey was made in the western

half of the county involving the communities of Dawson,

Humboldt, Salem, and Stella, The interviews were con-

ducted and responses recorded between October, I96I4. and

May, 1965» The February, 196i+ issue of the Southeastern

Nebraska Telephone Directory was used to determine the

population for this study. One-twentieth of the 1193

residential telephone extensions listed in the four commun-

ities provided a total of sixty interview prospects.

2

The Interview consisted of sixty questions with three

optional answers, yes, no, or no opinion, and each person

was asked to make a choice. Six major areas of concern

made up the interview format and related to attitudes

about: (1) tue existing school district structure, (2) tax

support of schools, (3) educational opportunities needed

in relation to all the youth of Rlcharcson county, (1±) areas

of concern that might cause people bo be reluctant to sup-

port reorganization, (5) areas of concern that might cause

reorganizational support, and (6) proposals for a school

district structure that would provide better educational

opportunities for all youth in Richardson county.

As indicated by the survey results, reorganization

of school districts was found to be important to the people

of Richardson county. More tnan fifty per cent of the

respondents supported the kind of services which are

generally ^ade possible through reorganization. Seventy-

five per cent of those who responded wanted better schools

in Richardson county to provide students with an educational

opportunity equal to the demands developed in modern America.

Seventy-three per cent of the people interviewed supported

reorganization as the best approach to improved schools in

Richardson county and to more comprehensive programs of

instruction and improved administrative leadership.

The type of district structure most frequently

3

supported by tnose Interviewed was two districts in the

coonty, one for the east and one for the west. Each district

wo ild maintain one high school and elementary schools where

needed. Other suggestions were made in support of a three

district county structure.

Even though some of the peoole surveyed did not fully

understand the meaning of reorganization, much support was

indicated for a different district structure. This was

described through the kinds of attitudes expressed concern-

ing educational opportunities ;nade possible by reorganization.

Of the total population surveyed, ninety-eight per cent con-

tended that providing the best educational opportunities for

the youth of Richardson county should be the major factor in

determining future school district structure.