xt7pnv99982k https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7pnv99982k/data/mets.xml Kentucky. Department of Education. Kentucky Kentucky. Department of Education. 1961-01 bulletins English Frankford, Ky. : Dept. of Education This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.) Education -- Kentucky Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "Reorganization of School Districts in Kentucky", vol. XXIX, no. 1, January 1961 text volumes: illustrations 23-28 cm. call numbers 17-ED83 2 and L152 .B35. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "Reorganization of School Districts in Kentucky", vol. XXIX, no. 1, January 1961 1961 1961-01 2022 true xt7pnv99982k section xt7pnv99982k téz'EEdL-ersl “W 0 Commonwealth of Kentucky 0 EDUCATIONAL BULLETIN h )4 v , REORGANIZATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN- KENTUCKY Published by ’78)} DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ’20 WENDELL P. BUTLER if} Superintendent of Public Instruction ISSUED MONTHLY \ Entered as‘ second-class matter March 21, 1933, at the post office at Frankfort, Kentucky, under the Act of August 24, 1912. POSTMASTER: SEND NOTICES OF CHANGES OF ADDRESS ON FORM 3579 VOL. XXIX JANUARY, 1961' No. I FOREWORD Reorganization of school districts of the State has been an impor- tant step in the movement for the proper development of an efficient school system for the State. There is presented in this publication the essential facts con- cerning the origin development and resulting facts of this movement in Kentucky. Because of its effect in the resulting program of edu— cation, I am requesting that it be published as a number of the Edu- cational Bulletins of the State Department of Education. I invite your attention to its contents as an important factor in the develop- ment of the present educational program for the State. \Vendell P. Butler Superintendent of Public Instruction INTRODUCTION Almost from the beginning of the public school system in Ken- tucky the small school district was a deterrent in the development of an efficient school system for the state. Although the early edu- cational leaders recognized this fact and so expressed it in their re- ports to the Governor and the General Assembly, it was not until 1908 that the first important step was taken by law to correct the situation. This was in the form of What is known as the county school district law. Opposition to this law, because of the requirement of a local tax levy and the maintenance of at least one high school for each county district, caused a movement in many parts of the state which resulted in an increase in the number of independent school districts Which were authorized by the legislature. This continued until about 1920. At about that period of time the interested school public began to realize that by the united efforts of two or more communities the needed school facilities could be more quickly secured than if they worked by separate units. At this period in the development of the public school system, rural territory began to demand better school facilities, Which could be best secured by the consolidation of the resources and efforts of surrounding territory by school districts. This resulted in a movement of consolidated schools for the benefit of the rural territory. The facts contained herein, together with the accompanying tables, show a gradual decline in the number of school districts since the beginning of the consolidated movement. This has resulted in more equality of educational opportunity for the school children of the state. The context of this story shows the essential facts in the reorgani- zation of school districts of the state and the basis therefor. n in Ken- velopment early edu- 1 their re- not until orrect the nty school of a local 1 for each :ate which 31 districts Id of time ted efforts .d be more vol system, hich could efforts of m0vement ry. )mpanying tricbs since fesulted in :hildren of e reorgani- )r. SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION IN KENTUCKY The School District The law of 1838 creating the public school system provided that school districts were to -.be laid off in counties iby surveyors named by the county court. N0 district was to have more than 100 pupils nor fewer than 80 pupils. This requirement for getting surveyors to lay off the districts was a handicap to school district organization. The services of such surveyors were expensive, so expensive that the county courts in several counties refused to make appropriations to pay for the work required in making school district surveys. It may thus be seen that there was created school administrative units preceding the establishment of public schools. State funds were made available for educational pur- IPOSC'S, .but the actual organization and management of schools was delegated to commissioners. Thus, our district system evolved as a channel for State school aid and was not the result of the formation of schools directly by local citizens. Not only did this law seriously delay the adoption of the system in counties, but it also, at this early day, engrafted on the system a practice which exists today, (1961), in a gradual dimin- ishing practice, of dividing the county into territorial divisions for purposes of education only. It is possible that this was done because schools of that early day were supported largely by local taxation or subscription. The State fund was used only to stimu- late the district to tax themselves. Kavanaugh as Superintendent of Public Instruction (1839-40) says: “In several instances, counties have refused to levy tax to defray the expenses of the survey of school districts as required (by law which retards the work of the district in the county. Many sections of the county have not been organized in the school system.” He states “that 20 or 80 counties are ready to adopt the system as soon as the way is open for them which would com- ply with the law.” Superintendent of Public Instruction, B. B. Smith said in 1841 that twenty-four counties had been reported as fully or partially organized under the law. From these counties 686 districts re- ported as beginning to operate. Of 19 districts in Woodford County to which the plan was submitted, 7 adopted it. Most of 3 them were in successful operation. The first common school in Kentucky was organized in Versailles in the summer of 1840. The organization of Franklin County followed closely to that of Woodford County. Seven out of nine districts to which the plan was submitted, adopted it. In Mr. Smith’s report in 1842, he said “one thing very much in the way of establishing a system of common schools in this State was the provision of law that the county courts must submit the law to the people for their adop- tion. This many of the courts, in defiance of the law, refused to do. This defeated the intention of the Legislature to submit that question not to the county court, but to the people themselves”. At the very beginning of the system, it was thus found that sub- mitting the school question to the county COurts was a mistake which resulted in injury to the schools. Graded Districts An Act of May 4, 1888, provided that upon a written petition of 10 voters, a vote should be taken upon the issue of establishing independent graded schools. Each graded school was required to have six trustees. Extend the Boundary of Graded Districts Superintendent James Fuqua’s report (1903-1907) states that a law was «passed during his administration which provided: “Any graded common school district outlined and exist— ing under any special act of the Legislature, any such district that has been or may hereafter be organized under the general laws of this State, may, by a written consent of the majority of the legal voters in the district, be added, extend the limit of such district so as to include additional territory as the board of education, or the trustees of such district, may desire to take within the limits and add to such district.” Instability of the District System In 1850 Superintendent Breckinridge stated that one of the great- est hinderances to the steady improvement of the school system had been the lack of stability. “This lack of stability shows itself in the changing of boundary lines in school districts. It is a difficult matter to build a school in some said district in so changeable a unit as a school district. Building good school houses, locating school houses, employing and keeping good teachers and many other needed improvements have 4 school in 840. The that of the plan 3, he said y-stem of that the eir adop- efused to bmit that :mselves”. that sub- a mistake )etition of :tablishing equired to tes that a led : exist— ' such anized Jritten istrict, nclude or the .in the f the great- 1001 system ging of matter 1gea-ble houses, ; good 5 have been made doubly hard :by this shifting unit. A man is not very willing to contribute toward building a new school house in ‘his district, when he has no assurance that the next year he will not be transferred to an adja- cent district. Not only was this true, but it was the rule of the State that about the time a district grew large enough and stable enough to begin a vigorous natural growth, it was divided. Nothing connected with the dis- trict school stays long enough to really take root in the life of the people. There is nothing that the common school system in the State needs so much as stability. Good schools must .be a gradual growth and no plant can grow much if it is transplanted every time it begins to root.” “We ‘have never ‘had in this State general territorial di- visions smaller than counties, and it will be with extreme difficulty that they could be either introduced or made permanent for an isolated object. Districts arranged for a single special, and new object, settled by no permanent rule; liable to incessant alteration at the caprice of the Commissioners, for the time :beng having such extreme variations from each other as to be equal in no respect whatever and wholly unequal in wealth and territorial extent, present a conception and a practical result which can not [be safely relied upon as the basis of a great and permanent system of general education.” County Board of Education Proposed Superintendent Harry D. McChesney (1900—1904) in :his annual report states that the present trustee system is very unsat- isfactory .because of the practice of nepotism and ibribery in con- nection with securing sc‘hool contracts. He proposed a county board of education to take rthe place of the trustee system. He recommended that all schools in the entire c0unty except the graded common schools organized under law be placed under the county board of education. James H. Fuqua (1904-1908) reports that the C'Ounty board of education bill was proposed, but failed to pass during his administration. County School District Law 1908 1. A New Law The General Assembly in 1908 passed the county school district law. This called for complete reorganization of the 5 school system and for the establishment within two years of of a high school in every county in Kentucky. This law marks the beginning of a new era in educational growth in Kentucky. The Essential Features of the Law The county was made one district excluding all the inde- pendent districts operating as independent school units. The county outside of these districts operating as independent school units was divided into educational divisions. Each educational division was made up of the number of schools within the educational division. The boundary of a school attendance area was known as a subdistrict. There was one local trustee for each school or subdistrict. Division boards were made up of the local trustees and the chairman of the division board was -a member of the county board of edu- cation. This division board selected the teachers of the schools in the division. The county superintendent was “ex officio” chairman of the county board of education. This board had the power to consolidate schools, with reference to the needs of the pupils of any two or more subdistricts and these were called consolidated school districts. This law was an attempt to replace the trustee system, which had pre~ vailed, and the too often amended and inconsistent district school law. City and independent districts then existing were not affected by the law. By the enactment of the county school district law of 1908, there was created what was known as subdistricts for the territory served by each school within the county school district. These subdistricts might have one teacher schools or there might exist a consolidated school, consisting of a number of teachers. The people of these subdistricts could vote an additional tax to that levied by the county district. This 'subdistrict tax could be used for school purposes only in the subdistrict territory. The subdistrict trustees were all powerful in that the laws authorized them to nominate teachers for their schools which the county board of edu- cation must elect unless they could show good reason for refusal to do so. G. Graded Schools a Detrirnent Barksdale Hamlet (1911-1913) in his report on education stated: “From careful study of the original .plan adopted by the rfirst Legislature after the adoption of the present consti- tution, 1891, for the voting and maintenance of schools, 6 D years Of aw marks row-th in the inde .nits. The lependent ns. Each of schools a school 3 was one )n boards [an of the d of edu- rs of the t was “ex ion. 'Ilhis reference 1bdistricts This law 1 had pre- nt district ;ting were 'Lot law of istricts for nty school er schools sting of a icts could ty district. poses only :3 were all nominate "d of edu- reason for ion stated: 3y the zonsti— >hools, I am convinced that the Legislature acted wisely and that it was a wise policy to foster and encourage the operation of such schools.” “Since the adoption of the county school district law, in 1908, by which the rural schools vote an annual tax and under which they have made such rapid strides in the matter of public education, I find the graded school a detriment rather than an advantage.” “The law should be amended and a plan adopted by which they may go out of existence and come under the county school district law, when it is desirable and practicable.” An act of 1922 gave some stability to the school system by repealing all special charter schools and giving these districts uniform laws, and by repealing the provisions authorizing the creation of new graded districts. The 1922 Act made more uni- form the laws governing independent districts embracing cities larger than the fifth class. This law was made more or less uni- form for all districts. The most significant feature of this act, however, was the repeal of the provision authorizing the creation of new graded school districts. When the law was passed on June 14, 1922, there were approximately 388 independent school districts (319 inde- pendent and 69 city). This added to the 120 counties made a total of 508 school districts in the State for the year 1920. Some of these were strong—others were very weak. In school census they ranged from 40 children to nearly 50,000. Many of them were one and two teacher districts. Many others had on] an elementary school and paid tuition for the high school pupils. City School Charters In 1922 there were new city school charters enactedhone for cities of the third class and one for districts embracing cities of the fourth class. Before this, there was no uniformity of laws for these districts. Some operated under the common school district law, some of them under graded common school district laws and some under special charters, no two of which were alike. Such charters were authorized by the General Assembly prior to the adoption of the present constitution, 1891, but were forbidden by it. These new laws of 1922 set up uniform and modern school administrative machinery and liberalized the school taxing privi- leges of these districts. I. Gradual Decline in the Number of Independent Districts 1. Variety of Tax Rates as a Factor During the years 1928-32, a study was made of school financial equalization and the factors that existed concerning the variety of facilities wbich affected equality of education opportunity. It was found that there were 40 tax rates for local school (purposes levied in all types of school districts for a particular year. These ranged from 25¢ to $2. The dis- tricts levying the [lower tax rates expended more per capita for instruction than did the district levying the $2 tax rate. During this period, laws were enacted permitting consolida- tion of districts in order to increase ability to secure the fa- cilities which were needed at the time. These laws permitted a variety of changes for these purposes as follows: a. Permitted graded common school boards and the county boards of education by concurrent action to combine the graded school district with the county school district. b. The return of graded school districts to the county school districts. c. County school districts to combine with city school districts. d. Adjacent city and graded districts to combine by contract for a term of one year. 6. Graded school districts to combine adjacent territory. 2. Decline by Five Year Periods Decline in the number of districts by five year periods as shown by the Public School Directories of State Depart- ment of Education. Year Number of Change for School Dist. Period 1909 313 1914 480 167 1920 508 28 1925 436 72 1930 399 37 1935 317 82 1940 262 55 1945 258 4 1950 237 21 1955 224 13 1960 211 13 I. School Code of 1984 By this code legal recognition was given to only two kinds f SChOO1 of school districts, namely county districts and independent dis- Icemin'g tricts. These independent districts replaced the several types of lucation districts recognized under the old law such as independent graded 'ates for and districts embracing cities of the first, second, third, and diS‘tIiC’ES fOurhh class. Under this code, the county district was composed The (113- of all the county outside of the independent district. Each inde- 51' capital pendent district under the new law had to have at least 250 census tax rate. pupils to claim independence. This was later, 1929, reduced to 200. )nsolida- 3 th‘? ia- K. Subdistricts Discontinued ermitted When the new 1934 law was passed, the subdistrict organi- zation was not included in the revised law, but an amendment and the to the law recognized the subdistrict and changed the number action to of trustees from three to one, Which would serve for a period 6 county of four years. This person was elected by secret ballot. Because these trustees in the subdistricts were all powerful, e county a great deal of trouble arose from the fact that they frequently would nominate close friends and relatives for the school positions. ty 5011001 The amendment by the 1984 law helped to correct this by listing certain relatives which the trustee could not recommend. nbine by In some sections of the State subdistrict trustee elections created mudh lhatred among interested parties for the positions territory. in the sdhools. This interest in the trustee election became so intense that a law was passed which authorized boards of educa- tion to discontinue subdistricts on the basis of providing better I periods school facilities. In some county districts, subdistrict after sub- : Depart- district was discontinued until all the subdistricts of the county had been discontinued. By the authority of a decision of the Court of Appeals boards of education learned that they might e for by one action discontinue practically all of the subdistricts of 3d county school districts if they could Show good reason for such action. The work of boards of education in discontinuing sub- districts with that of the intensity of the hatred developed in subdistrict trustee elections finally resulted in a discontinuance of the election of subdistrict trustees in county after county. In 1946 all subdistrict school taxes, except those required to release outstanding bonds, were abolished. The legislature in 1956 re- pealed all laws authorizing the operation of subdistricts. This repeal came, however, several years after the discontinuance of electing the subdistrict trustees. The delay of the repeal was be- cause of the fact that in several sections of the State subdish'icts had outstanding bond issues or tax levies which must be used to ODDOP‘HBUlLVNvaw 9 clear the obligations of the subdistrict before such legal action should be taken. L. Merger of School Districts 1. Concurrent Action of Boards of Education Although there existed certain authority of the Legisla- ture for the change in boundaries of school districts, the new School Code of 1934 authorized the merger of school districts by concurrent action of boards of education. The boards of education of any contiguous districts may, by such action merge their districts. By an amendment to the law in 1948 the initiative for such merger must come from the independent school district. Under authority of this law the independent district may re- quire a merger with the county school district. In case the county board of education refuses to accept the merger, or if the two boards can not agree on a merger, the independent district board may appeal to the Superin- tendent of Public Instruction and request that such merger be submitted to the State Board of Education for final settle- ment. Such procedure is authorized by KRS 160.041. 2. Transfer of Territory Between Districts The General Assembly has provided procedures whereby property located in one district may be transferred to an adjacent district. Independent districts may annex any part of the county district lying adjacent to it and a county dis- trict may annex part of an independent district lying within, partly Within, or adjacent to it. The board desiring to annex territory must first secure approval of the affected districts and the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Superin- tendent’s decision must take into consideration the ratio of the census pupil wealth of the territory proposed to be an- nexed to the wealth of the district in which it is located, and the effect of the proposed territorial loss on the district’s educational program. An alternative procedure enables all property located within one municipal incorporated territory to be placed in one school district. Prior to 1940, When territory annexed to a city was located in a county school district it automatically became part of the city school district. Present law requires that 75 percent of the owners of real property in such territory [petition the county board of education for transfer to the independent district. Where the recipient district approves the transfer, the county board cannot prevent it. If the county 10 l action Legisla- the new districts cts may, rtive for district. may re- 0 accept merger, Superin- r merger a1 settle- whereby :d to an any part unty dis- g within, to annex districts Superin- : ratio of :o be an- ated, and district’s ,1 located placed in mexed t0 )matically r requires 1 territory 'er to the approves he county district fails to carry out the transfer, or the city board does approve the demand, property owners of the territory may petition the circuit court for a writ of mandamus and force action. Annexation of valuable property by city school districts has proved a real problem for some counties. These statutes, which provide the exclusive procedures for annexation, were intended to assure that transfers would 'be with the approval of citizens of the area. The Court has invoked legislative in- tent in examining the law: “the fundamental school system unit is the county district. The independent districts are cut out from the county district. If the county district may be re- duced or enlarged by vote of a city council without the approval of the county district, the affairs of the latter unit must obviously be at all times uncertain and unstable . . . the financial ability of a county to support its schools might be seriously impaired by a city’s absorption of valuable taxable property located in the county, . . . we believe the legislature has shown a clear intention to establish specific methods in which all interested parties praticipate.” Effect of County Consolidation on School Districts The legislature has provided for the disposition of school districts in the event of county consolidation, a situation that has not yet occurred. If two counties consolidate, they be- come one school district. The resulting district assumes all the assets and liabilities and continues to levy any special taxes of the former districts. Members of the two boards may serve out the terms for which they were elected, and super- intendents may serve out the remainder of their contract periods, after casting lots to see which will serve as super- intendent and which as assistant superintendent. The law does not specify whether or not independent districts in the two counties would remain operative, but the language of the statue, that “the counties as consolidated shall constitute one county school district,” implies that county consolidation would not affect city school districts. Present Status in District Reorganization in Kentucky As the demand has increased for better school facilities because of vast change in economical, social and technological changes which have taken place there has been gradual decrease in the number of independent school districts. Re- gardless of any obstacles that may have existed to district 11 reorganization it is gradually gone forward. Revision of state plans for the support of public schools has played an im- portant part in such a reorganization during the past few years. The reduction in the number of independent school districts 'has continued until now (1961). There are only 91 independent districts in operation in the state While in 1921 there were 388 such districts. At present there are 55 county units with no independent districts, there are 30 counties with one central high school, but also with one or more independent districts within the county. ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS Between the dates of 1908 and 1934, school districts were known as (1) county school districts and (2) graded school districts and school districts in cities and towns of the first six classes. After the revised code of 1984 all of these districts were combined into two types, namely county districts and independent districts. Title to school property in transferred territory was defined in the 1934 code as follows: “Section 4899-5, Ky. Stat, Title to School Property in Trans- ferred Territory. The title to school property in the territory trans- ferred from one school district to another shall remain vested in the board of education of the district from which the territory was transferred. In case of the sale of Such property the board of education to which the property belongs may allow a credit on the sale price of the property in proportion to the ratio which the school population of the transferred territory is to the total school popu- lation of the district from which the territory was transferred before the transfer was made. A board of education owning and operating a school plant in another district at the time of the passage of this act may continue to own and operate such plant, and a county board of education may establish and maintain a school in an independent school district; and any independent school district may purchase school sites and establish and maintain schools outside the school or cor- porate limits of the independent district, but such independent districts containing cities of the first or second class shall not purchase school sites or establish or maintain schools outside the 12 conce distri< territOJ action district inc sot edl aPl SIdI pro of l tric sch boa to 1 que sucl county in which such independent district is located.” (1934, C. 65, p. 231.) (Page 47, 1934 School Law.) In 1938 a law was passed by the General Assembly of Kentucky l concerning transfer of part of the independent district to the county district. This law reads as follows: “Boards of Education in independent school districts in incor- porated cities, where the independent district boundaries extend beyond the city boundaries, may by joint and concurrent action with the county board of education of the county wherein the independent district is located, transfer to the county district any portion of the area of the independent district outside of the corporate limits of the city. Provided, however, that no transfer shall be made if such transfer would reduce the number of census pupils of the inde- pendent district to less than 250 in number.” (1938) Page 18, Supplement to School Laws, April, 1938. In 1940 the laws governing title to school property in transferred ’1 territory to which we just referred, remained the same as in 1934. This action of the Assembly provided for the annexation of county sub- districts as follows: “Section 4399—4b, Ky. Stat. Annexation of County Subdistricts. re Any independent school district may annex and unite as a part of the independent school district any county subdistrict, sub- districts, or parts of subdistricts lying adjacent to the independent school district, or any county district may annex a part of an independent district either lying within, partly within, or adjacent to the county district, subject to the following provisions: “When a part of the county district is to be annexed to an independent district, the board of education of the independent ln school district shall secure the approval of the county board of e education and of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Such approval of the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall con- =d sider the ratio of the per census pupil wealth of the territory “ proposed to be added to the independent school district to that of the average per census pupil wealth of the county school dis- 01 in trict as a whole and the effect of the proposed territorial loss of He the county district on the educational program of such county 011 school district. )0 “If and when such approval has been secured in writing, the board of education of the independent school district shall submit ) t to the legal voters of the territory proposed to be added the Int question of whether or not said territory shall become a part of :6 such independent school district. If said proposal shall be 301 or- 13 adopted by a majority vote of the legal voters resident within the territory to be added to the independent district, such territory shall become a part of the independent school district. “When a part of the independent district is to be annexed to the county district, the board of education of the county school district shall secure the approval of the board of education of the independent school district and of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Such approval of the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall consider the ratio of the per census pupil wealth of the territory proposed to be added to the county school district, to that of the average per census pupil wealth of the independent school disuict and the effect of the proposed territorial loss of the independent school district on the educational program of said independent school district. “If and when such approval has been secured in writing, the board of education of the county school district shall submit to the legal voters of the territory proposed to be added the question of whether or not said territory shall become a part of such county school district. If said proposal shall be adopted by a majority of the legal voters resident within the territory to be added to the county school district, such territory shall become a part of the county school district.” (1940, C. 70, p. 302.) (Page 312, School Laws, 1940.) In 1942 the Legislature modified Section 4399-4b annexation law by setting up two separate sections namely 160.050 and 160.060. They are essentially the same as 4399-4b quoted above. Section 160.050 (4399-4b) reads as follows: “Annexation of Subdistm’ct by Independent District. Any in- dependent school district may annex any part of a coun