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