Opportunity for Ah Children in Missouri. Historical Development Of

Home , Area code 314, Area code 417, Area code 816, Education in Missouri

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 026 171 RC 003 077 School District Organization for Missouri, A Plan to Provide Equal Access to Educational Opportunity for all Children. Report of the Missouri School District Reorganization Commission. Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Coll. of Education. Spons Agency-Missouri School District Reorganization Commission, Jefferson City. Pub Date Nov 68 Note-162p. Available from-Chairman, Missouri School District Reorganization Comm., Room 300, State Capitol Building, Jef ferson City, Missouri 65101 EDRS Price MF-$0.75 HC-$8.20 Descriptors -*AdministrativeOrganization,Development,Educational Improvement, EducationalNeeds, *Educational Planning, Educational Programs, *Master Plans, Methods, Population Trends, Projects, R'egional Planning, Rural Education, School Districts, *School Redistricting, *Small Schools, State Legislation, Tables (Data) Identifiers-*Missouri Plans and procedures are described for providing equal access toeducational opportunity for aH children in Missouri. Historical development of school district organizationintheStateistraced.The needforfurtherschooldistrict reorganization is examined, and methods of achieving effective organization are evaluated. A recommended statewide plan, known as the Domian plan, is outlined .(-..r reorganization, including the formation of regional school districts and local schoo! units. Numerous tables and maps add significance to the discussion. (SW) T, , , I-, -1,-. A6 -*-[1:16; , *E. V701." o,,1-LB4i969 ti...i Iti .7c=1 School District Organization for Missouri

The Report of the Missouri School District Reorganization Commission November, 1968 EDUCATION & WELFARE U.S. DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH. OFFICE Of EDUCATION

REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVEDIRON THE THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN ORIGINATING II. POINTS OfVIEW OR OPINIONS PERSON OR ORGANIZATION REPRESENT OFFICIAL OffICE OfEDUCATION STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY

POSITION OR POLICY. SCHOOL DISTRICTORGANIZATION FOR MISSOURI

A PLAN TO PROVIDE EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL CHILDREN

The Report of the Missouri School District Reorganization Commission

Professional Consultants Bureau of Field Studies and Surveys University of Minnesota

November, 1968

As long as the supply lasts, additional single copies of this Report are available upon request from: James I. Spainhower, Chairman, Missouri School District Reorganization Commission Room 300, State Capitol Building, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 UNIVERSITY774in-next-a, a

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION BUREAU OF FIELD STUDIES AND SURVEYS MINNEArOLIS,MINNESOTA 55455

October 15, 1968

Mr. James I. Spainhower Chairman, Missouri School District Reorganization Commission Marshall, Missouri

Dear Mr. Spainhower:

The Bureau of Field Studies andSurveys is pleased to submit to you and the othermembers of the Missouri SchoolDistrict Reorganiza- tion Commission the report,School District Organization forMissouri. This report has been prepared incompliance with a contract executed by the Missouri School DistrictReorganization Commission and the Regents of the University ofMinnesota.

The report describes the planand procedure of the reorganization project and traces thedevelopment of school district organization in Missouri. It examines the need forfurther school district reorganization in the state, evaluatesthe methods of achieving effective school district organization,and presents a recommended statewide plan for school districtreorganization.

In presenting this report, thestaff of the Bureau expresses its sincere appreciation forthe excellent cooperationreceived from the members of the Commissionand the Advisory Committee. Special thanks are extended toHubert Wheeler, Commissionerof Education, and members of hisstaff. The records of the State Department of Education werealways made readily availableand the staff members were most helpfulin providing supplementalinforma- all data tion. The various state agenciesand departments supplied requested. Superintendents, school personnel,board members, and citizens from every district inthe state participated inthe project. not have been Without that wholeheartedcooperation this report could prepared. It has indeed been a privilegeto participate in this significant statewide project.

Sincerely yours,

Otto E. Domian, Director Bureau of Field Studiesand Surveys TELEPHONE 636-3650

Maioaid Schoolithdc tawortaaigation Puiect ROOM B-36 STATE CAPITOL JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI 65101

SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION PROJECT DIRECTOR COMMISSION OTTO E. DOMIAN CHAIRMAN BUREAU OF FIELD STUDI SPAINHOWER. JAMES I. AND SURVEYS 516 SOUTH DRIVE, MARSHALL, MO. 65340 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOT HOME AND OFFICE: GA 6-2436 AREA CODE 816 VICE CHAIRMAN KELLEY. CHARLES DAYTON November 15, 1968 GOWER, MO. HOME: 424-6315 OFFICE: MO 7-531610(5T. JOSEPH) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AREA CODE 816 SECRETARY The Honorable Warren E. Hearnes MOLLER. MRS. GLENN Governor of Missouri 298 ELM AVE., GLENDALE, MO. 63122 HOME: YO 6-4167 The Members of the Seventy-Fifth General Assembly AREA CODE 314 The Members of the State Board of Education CONNER. WILLIS DEXTER, MO. Gentlemen: HOME: MA 4-4527 OFFICE: 4-3235 AREA CODE 314 Since its organizational meeting on October 9, 1967, the Missouri School District CONWAY, SCOTT J. Reorganization Commission has been extremely involved in making an exhaustive study MONROE CITY, MO. of Missouri's public school district structure. HOME: RE 5-2633 OFFICE: RE 5-4555 AREA CODE314 The Commission has been ably guided in its endeavors by Dr. Otto Domian of the HURT, JAMES E. JR. University of Minnesota and his staff. Literally hundreds of persons have assisted in 3000 EASTON AVE., ST. LOUIS, MO. providing information, attending hearings, and filling out questionnaires. To all who have HOME: VO 2-0,158 OFFICE:01 2-5633 in any maxmer contributed to the completion of this study, the Commission is most AREA CODE 314 grateful. MINER, LAWRENCE 112NORTH COLLEGE, WEBB CITY, MO. The Commission firmly believes that the recommendations contained in this report HOME: OR 3-4066 OFFICE: OR 34136 provide sound guidance for the members of the General Assembly, the State Board of AREA CODE 417 Education, and the school patrons of Missouri as they wrestle with the admittedly VANLANDINGHAM, A. BASEY sensitive problem of how better to structure the state's school districts. BOX 711, COLUMBIA, MO. HOME: 442-4389 OFFICE: 443-3424 Because of the special problems of the two large metropolitan areas, the Commission AREA CODE 314 has prepared a more detailed outline of its recommendations relative to the educational VANOSDOL, PAUL JR. structure for the public schools in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas. This information 1212 FAIRFAX BLDG., KANSAS CITY, MO. will furnished to the State Department of Education and will be available for distribution. HOME: DE 3-4016 OFFICE: HA 1-0642 AREA CODE 816 Every day the need grows more urgent, in nearly every area of Missouri, for a modern school district structure capable of functioning effectively and efficiently in today's world. In the light of this need, the Commission strongly urges the General Assembly to move with all deliberate speed to enact meaningful reorganization legislation. An old saying conveys very adequately how the Commission feels about its work and report: "They gathered the sticks, and kindled the fire, and left it burning." This the Commission has done. Now we trust that others who share our concern for the provision of equal access to educational opportunity for all children will keep the fire burning.

Sincere,

sinet.4./>._ - James I. Spainh wer, Chairman Missouri School District Reorganization Commission

111 MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION COMMISSION James I. Spainhower, Chairman Marshall State Representative and Chairman, House Education Committee Charles Dayton Kelley, Vice Chairman Gower Elementary Principal, St. Joseph Mrs. Glenn Moller, Secretary Glendale Co-Chairman, 1966 Governor's Conference on Education Willis Conner, Member Dexter Real Estate Broker Scott J. Conway, Member Monroe City Merchant James E. Hurt, Jr., Member St Louis President, St. Louis Board of Education Lawrence Miner, Member Webb City Superintendent, Webb City Public Schools A. Basey Vanlandingham, Member Columbia State Senator and Chairman, Senate Education Committee Paul Van Osdol, Jr., Member Kansas City Attorney-at-Law, Terrell, Van Osdol, and Magruder, Attorneys

MEMBERS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE Edwin R. Bailey, Professor William C. Kottmeyer University of Missouri at Kansas City Superintendent of Schools St. Louis City

Dr. Paul H. Bowman, Executive Director Galen E. Lankford Institute for Community Studies Superintendent of Schools Kansas City Monroe City Warren M. Brown, Superintendent Daniel U. Levine, Professor Ferguson-Florrisant School District University of Missouri at Kansas City St. Louis County Mrs. Elizabeth Burnett Arthur L. Mallory, President Superintendent of Schools, Chariton County Southwest Missouri State College Keytesville Springfield Joseph P. Cosand, President John R. Neal, President, Board of Education Metropolitan Junior College District Chillicothe St. Louis Merrimon Cuninggim, President Herbert Schooling, Dean of Faculties Danforth Foundation University of Missouri St. Louis Columbia John Ervin, Professor Ralph Scott Washington University Superintendent of Schools St. Louis Monett Thurston Hill Robert Wheeler Superintendent of Schools Assistant Superintendent of Schools D exter Kansas City Everett Keith, Executive Secretary Missouri State Teachers Association Columbia

iv ,

4.11.

THE PROJECT STAFF

ACADEMIC PERSONNEL Dr. Otto E. Domian, Professor of Education and Director, Bureau of Field Studies and Surveys Dr. Clifford P. Hooker, Professor of Education and Chairman, Department of Educational Administration Dr. Van D. Mueller, Associate Professor of Education and Executive Secretary, Educational Research and Development Council of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Inc. Dr. Charles H. Sederberg, Assistant Professor of Education Mr. William G. Grimsley, Instructor Mr. Joseph F. Ryan, Instructor

CIVIL SERVICE PERSONNEL Arlene Fenske Roger Miller George Goblish H. Victor Nelson Diane Hartje Yvonne Norrgard Marie Hilgemann Anne Roods Helen Kendall Dorothy Sieger Patricia Laugen Carol Spriggs

INTERVIEWERS

William Bodanske William R. Musgrove Irvin W. Cockriel Vincent Oxley Loren Denny Gary Phye Mrs. Mary B. Fink Richard L. Simms Alan J. Fitzpatrick Gene Van Matre Don Ginavan John A. Voth John D. Good Mrs. Joan D. Wagnon John N. Goodwin Robert 0. Washington Tommy R. Koonce Donald J. Welsh B. Charles Leonard Mrs. Nancy Whitman Geoffrey R. McKee Barry Wilson David McQueeney Robert T. Wollberg TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

I THE PLAN AND PROCEDURE OF THE MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION PROJECT 1 This Statewide Reorganization Project Was Initiated by Legislative Action 1 The Reorganization Commission Employed Professional Personnel 2 Criteria for School District Reorganization Were Developed 3 Meetings Were Scheduled in Each County with Representatives from Every District 5 The Project Culminated in the Preparation of a Plan for School District Organization 6

II THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION IN MISSOURI 7 Early Emphasis Was on Creation of Many Small School Districts 7 The Need for School District Reorganization Was Recognized as Early as 1900 8 The School District Reorganization Law of 1948 Gave Major Impetus to Reducing the Number of School Districts 8 The Press for Major School District Reorganization Has Continued in Recent Years 10 Present School District Organization Indicates Substantial Progress 12 Most States Have Exceeded Missouri in School District Reorganization 15

III THE NEED FOR FURTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTREORGANIZATION 17 Wide Differences Exist in the Scope and Nature of Present Educational Programs 17 The Years of Education Vary by Type of District 18 The Districts without Schools Have No Educational Programs 18

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE Educational Programs in Districts OperatingElementary Schools. Only Are Very Limited 19 Educational Programs in Districts OperatingElementary and High Schools Differ Widely 21 Population Changes Within the State AffectSchool District Organization 33

Birth Trends Have Major Impactupon the Need for Schools 41 Substantial Inequities in School Supportand Resources Result from Present School DistrictOrganization 49

IV METHODS OF ACHIEVING EFFECTIVESCJIOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION 54 Missouri Has Several Methods of ChangingDistrict Organization 55

The Reorganization Law of 1948 HasBeen Widely Used... 55 Numerous Districts Have BeenEstablished Under Consolidation 57 School Districts May Be EnlargedThrough Annexation Procedures 59 Legislation to Implement DistrictReorganization Is of Three Types 61 Permissive Legislation Has Been Least Effectivein Creating Sound Districts 61 Mandatory Legislation Places DistrictReorganization on a Statewide Basis 63

Semipermissive Legislation Combines Permissiveand Mandatory Features 65 Missouri Reorganization Legislation IsOnly Partially Effective 67 V THE RECOMMENDED PLAN OF SCHOOLDISTRICT ORGANIZATION FOR MISSOURI 69 Educational Problems in MetropolitanAreas and Rural Areas Are Equally Critical 69

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION PAGE

Regional School Districts and Local School Units Are Recommended 74 The Recommended Plan of Regional School Districts and Local School Units Is Applied to Missouri 79 The Implementation of the Recommended School District Reorganization Should Be Scheduled Over a Three-Year Period 102 Some Related Actions Are Needed with the Implementation of School District Reorganization 104 The Acceptance of the Recommended Plan of District Reorganization Will Require Extensive Cooperative Effort .... 106

BIBLIOGRAPHY 107 APPENDIX (Maps of each of the Proposed Regional Districts with Recommended Local School Units and Present School Districts)

ENLARGED MAPS FOLDED IN BACK

viii LIST OF TABLES

NUMBER PAGE

1 Number of School Districts in Missouri, 1940-1968 11

2 Number of Missouri School Distric-s by Type of School, July 1, 1968 13

3 Number of Operating and Nonoperating School Districts by States, 1967-68 15

4 Enrollment in School Districts Operating Elementary Schools Only, 1966-67 20

5 The Distribution of Districts Maintaining Elementary and High Schools by Size of Elementary School (Grades 1- 8) Enrollment, 1966-67 21

6 The Minimum Curriculum Offerings for High School Classification 25

7 High Schools by Classification in Each County, June 1968 26

8 Population of Missouri by Decades, 1830-1960 33

9 The Rural and Urban Population of Missouri, 1830-1960 34

10 Population of Counties, 1920-1960 35

11 Resident Live Births in United States and Missouri, 1940-1967 .. 41

12 Resident Live Births in Missouri by Counties for Selected Years, 1940-1967 43

13 The 1967-68 School Tax Levies for Districts Existing on July 1, 1968 50

14 The Assessed Valuation Per Resident Pupil in Grades 1-12 by Districts, 1966-67 51

15 Rank Order of St. Louis County School Distrkts on Assessed Valuation Per Pupil, on Expenditure Per Pupil, and on School Tax Levy, 1966-67 71

16 Pupil and Financial Data of the School Districts in Jackson County, 1966-67 72

17 Responsibilities Allocated to Regional School District and Local School Unit 75

18 Recommended Local School Units for Missouri 90

ix LIST OF FIGURES PAGE NUMBER 19 I Number of School Districts byCounties, July 1, 1968

II Location of Missouri School DistrictsOperating Class AAA and Class AA High Schools, June 1968 28

III Location of Missouri School DistrictsOperating Class A and Unclassified High Schools, June 1968 29

IV Units of Credit Offered in HighSchools by Classification of Schools, 1967-68 30 39 V Population by Counties, 1960 Actualand 1967 Projected 40 VI Population Projections by Counties,1967 and 1975

VII Number of Births by Counties forSelected Years, 1951, 1959, 1967 48

VIII Average School Tax Levy Per HundredDollars of Assessed Valuation by School Districts of EachType 49

IX Final Certified Assessed ValuationRatios by Counties 1967 52 82 X Regional Planning Areas for Missouri 83 XI Regional School Districts and LocalSchool Units Map of Missouri School Districts, July 1, 1968 Folded in Back Map of Recommended RegionalSchool Districts and Local School Units for Missouri Folded in Back Map of Existing School Districtsand Recommended Local School Units in the KansasCity Metropolitan Regional School District Folded in Back Map of Existing School Districts andRecommended Local School Units in the East-WestGateway Regional School District Folded in Back Page-size Maps of All Regional SchoolDistricts, including Boundaries of ExistingSchool Districts and Recommended Local School Units Appendix

x SECTION I

THE PLAN AND PROCEDURE OF THE MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION PROJECT The determination of the best form of members appointed by the governor school district organization to provide ade- with the advice and consent of the quate educational opportunities toevery child senate and one member of the com- in the state has been a continuous problem mittee on education of the senate ap- in most states. Missouri isno exception. pointed by the president pro tem of During the early years of its statehood the the senate, and one member of the com- emphasis was on creating districts in large mittee on education of the house of numbers so that schools would be readily representatives appointed by the accessible. As the educational programs be- speaker of the house of representa- came more extensive and more education tives. Not more than two of the mem- was required, the need for larger school bers shall be professional educators. units became apparent. By 1900, educators The members shall serve without com- and other interested citizens began working pensation but shall be reimbursed for toward reducing the number of districtsin the expenses necessarily incurred in order to have a more adequate schoolsys- the performance of their duties. tem. Throughout this century that movement has continued. This school districtreorgan- Section 2. The Missouri school dis- ization project is the most recent stepin trict reorganization commission shall that development. develop a master plan for school district reorganization over the entire state. Each school district shall be THIS STATEWIDE REORGANIZATION composed so as to promote efficiency PROJECT WAS INITIATED BY in school administration and improve LEGISLATIVE ACTION the educational opportunities of the school children of the state. The com- The Seventy-fourth General Assembly of mission shall submit the master plan the State of Missouri, recognizing the need to the state board of education on or for more effective school districtorganiza- before November 15, 1968. The plan tion to improve the educational opportunities shall be in writing and shall include of the children of the state, createdthe charts, maps and statistical informa- MissouriSchoolDistrictReorganization tion necessary to document properly Commission. The Commission ofnine mem- the plan for the proposed reorganized bers was given the charge of developinga school districts. statewide master plan for school district reorganization and of submitting its plan to Section 3. 1. The Missouri school the State Board of Education by November 15, districtreorganization commission 1968. The legislative act establishingthe may expend the funds and employ the Commission,defining its responsibilities, personnel, including professional con- and outlining the procedure isas follows: sultants from within or without the state, necessary to assist it in carry- Be it enacted by the General Assembly ing out the duties imposed upon it by of the State of Missouri,as follows: this act. Section 1.TheMissouri school 2. The commission may hold the district reorganization commissionis meetings within and without the state, established to be composed ofseven and the public hearings within the

1 state that it deems necessary to the out the state and to prevent the un- accomplishment of its objective. Pub- desirable rearrangement of school lic hearings shall be held in each districts which may result in a reduc- college district of this state and all tion in the quality of education, this school districts under consideration act is necessary for the immediate shall be notified of said hearing. The preservationofthe public peace, notice shall be mailed to all school health and safety, and an emergency administrators and board members of exists within the meaning of the con- area under consideration. stitution, and this act, therefore, shall be in full force and effect upon its Section 4. On receiving the plan for passage and approval. 1 the commission, the state board of education shall consider same, may hold such public hearings as it may THE REORGANIZATION COMMISSION desire in connection therewith, and EMPLOYED PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL shall submit to the Seventy-fifth Gen- eral Assembly on or before January 15, The members of the Commission organ- 1969, all reports, data and recommen- ized with James I. Spainhower as Chairman, dations received by it from the com- Charles Dayton Kelley as Vice Chairman, mission, along with the state board's and Mrs. Glenn Moller as Secretary. A specific legislative recommendations representativegroupof educators from as to how best a reorganization plan the colleges and universities of Missouri might be implemented. was consulted during the processof formu- lating a plan of procedure. After extensive Section 5. The master plan submit- consultations and interviews, the Bureau of ted by the commission and recommen- Field Studies and Surveys of the University dations of the state board of education of Minnesota, directed by Dr. Otto E. Domian, shall be advisory only. was selected to direct the study.A contract for the services of the Bureau was negotiated Section 6. On the effective date of with the Regents of the University of Min- this act all proceedings of whatsoever nesota. nature in school districts throughout An office in the State Capitol at Jefferson the state to organize new districts City was opened on December 1, 1967, and the pursuant to or growing out of sections staff began its work. The early efforts of 162.211 and 162.221, RSMo Supp. 1965, the staff members were directed to col- shall cease, and each district shall lecting and examining a mass of data and retain the organization and boundaries studying the numerous reports pertinent to that it has at the time this act takes public education. Maps were prepared show- effect, and no further action shall be ing the boundaries of every school district. taken pursuant to such sections until Data relating to school district organization, after the state plan developed by the instructional programs, enrollments,as- school district reorganization com- sessed valuations, tax rates, bonded indebted- mission has been submitted to the ness, school buildings, population,births, state board of education and, with its roads, and other items affecting public school recommendations, transmitted to the education were secured from a variety of general assembly but, in no event, sources. Records and reports in the State until after October 15, 1969. Department of Education and other state

Section7. Because there is an immediate need to halt the multiplicity 1. House Substitute for Senate Substitute of proceedings and growing confusion for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate in school district organization through- Bill No. 166, 74th General Assembly.

2 offices were particularly useful. Among the Commission. Following this joint review, the many publications evaluated were several following criteria were adopted: doctoral dissertations, state school survey reports, and specific school studies relating Education is a state function. Thus to a county or a region of the state. In ad- the state, having the responsibility for ditionto the reports relating directly to education,establishesthe form of Missouri,schooldistrictreorganization school district organization and dele- plans for other states were studied. gates certain operational responsibilities to the districts. CRITERIA FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT The major purpose of school dis- REORGANIZATION WERE DEVELOPED trict reorganization is to establish the During the data collection period other framework whicn will provide a quality phases of the project were also under way. educational program and, as far as Seven regional hearings, at Springfield, Cape possible,an equal opportunity for Girardeau, Warrensburg, Kansas City, St. every child in the state to receive Louis, Kirksville, and Maryville, were held an education geared to his ability, during the period from January 29 through interests and need. School districts February 15. School administrators, board should be organized in such a manner members, and other interested citizens were that all resources for education can invited.Invitations were mailed to every be used wisely and efficiently. School school district of the state requesting that district reorganization should develop the hearings be publicized and urging that strong school districts, strengthen the each district be well represented at the state and local relationships, and en- hearing. Copies of the criteria for effective courage effective local and state parti- school districts, taken from the publication cipation. LOOKING AHEAD TO BETTER EDUCATION IN MISSOURI, A REPORT ON ORGANIZA- The Missouri School District Re- TION, STRUCTURE, AND FINANCING OF organization Commission accepts the SCHOOLS AND JUNIOR COLLEGES which following criteria as basic to a viable had been presented at the Governor's Con- school district: ference on Education in 1966, were included with the invitation. A member of the Com- 1. All property within the state mission presided at each regional meeting. should be included in a school district Chairman JamesI.Spainhower spoke on which provides a carefully planned Missouri School District Organization educational program extending at least "Where We Are and How We Got There" and from kindergarten through the twelfth Director Otto E. Domian discussed "The Plan grade. and Purpose of the Missouri School District Reorganization Study Proj ect".In the discus- 2. Each district should have its sion period the persons in attendance were own board of education elected by the given opportunity to pose questions and voters in the district. react to the proposed criteria. More than 2,000 persons participated in these regional 3. Each district should encompass meetings. a geographic area which includes one Following the seven regional meetings the or more established communities. It project staff developed a set of criteria for should be of an optimum size to use effective school districts, taking into account financial resources in the most ef- the reactions voiced at the meetings. The fective manner, to insure competent Commission revised the criteria and then lay and professional leadership, and submitted them to the Advisory Committee to permit a high level of citizen partic- which had been selected to work with the ipation and communication.

3 4. Each district should include a F. A fullycertificated coun- diverse population, based on economic, selor, giving full time to the counsel- racial and ethnic characteristics. ing program. 5. A school district does not have G. Each high school teacher to conform to county boundaries. It to teach primarily in the area of his or may consist of only a portion of one or her major preparation; not more county or it may include area in two or than 2/5 of the teaching assigiment more counties. to be outside the area of major prepa- . ration and all teaching to be in either 6. Efforts should be made to reduce the major or minor fields of prepara- the disparity among school districts in tion. taxable wealth behind each child. Each district should include property with an H. A fully certificated elemen- equalized assessed valuation per stu- tary school principal, giving full time dent sufficient to support a reasonable to administration and supervision of portion of the total cost of the educa- the elementary instructional program. tional program. I. Each elementary teacher to 7. Travel time to school should not be fully certificated for the position he exceed 60 minutes each way for sec- or she holds. ondary and 40 minutes each way for elementary pupils. J. Specialists in the elementary school program in the areas of music, 8. Each District should provide, as art, physical education, and remedial a minimum, the following educational instruction. program and personnel: K. A fully certificated elemen- A. A program extending from tary librarian,giving full time to kindergarten through grade 12, organ- library activities. ized into such elementary and secondary school attendance centers as L. A program of health services feasible. for the school system. B. A fully certificated superin- M. A program of special intendent of schools, giving full time to struction for atypical children, such as administration of the district. the gifted, retarded, emotionally disturbed and socially maladjusted. C. A fullycertificated hi gh school principal, giving full time to N. Three full-time secretarial administration and supervision of the or clerical personstoassist the secondary instructional program. professional staff. D. Fifty (50) units of approved 9. In order to implement the mini- creditin grades 912, with broad mum educational program on an eco- distribution by subject areas, including nomical and effective basis, each dis- academicandvocational - technical trict should have at least 1,200 pupils fields. in kindergarten through grade 12. E. A fullycertificated high 10. Whereverpossible,districts school librarian, giving full time to having more than 1,200 pupils should library activities. be established; such districts should

4 have a more extensiveprogram and MEETINGS WERE SCHEDULED IN EACH more personnel than specified for the COUNTY WITH REPRESENTATIVES minimum district. FROM EVERY DISTRICT 11. In all urban and suburbanareas, no district should have fewer than A major phase of the reorganizationpro- 5,000 elementary and secondary pupils; ject consisted of conferences withrepre- an enrollment of 10,000 to 30,000 sentatives of each school district. A detailed would be more desirable. schedule of meetings was planned. The school system in each county seat provided the 12. The boundaries ofno district meeting place. A copy of the Criteria for should be established,even though it School District Organization anda meeting may meet all of the criteria, if, by so schedule were included in the letters of ex- doing, it leaves an adjacentarea with- planation which were mailed to two officials out the possibility of an appropriate of each school district. assignment to an acceptable district. Meetings were held in each county seat. If unusual local conditions make it The schedule of meetings extended through impractical to apply all criteria, ad- the three-week period, April 1-19. Twenty- justments may be necessary to estab- nine staff members conducted the interviews. lish the best possibledistrict. 2 Each district was scheduled ata specific time, with a minimum of 45minutes allocated The criteria are based on several funda- to each school district operatingno school mental concepts which need constant empha- or an elementary school only, 60 minutes sis. They include: to each district operating both elementary and secondary schools, and 90 minutes to each 1. Education is a state responsibility. county board of education. Each districtwas Thus, the state has the obligation to urged to have one or more representatives establish the best possible form of attend; other interested citizenswere also district organization. invited. Those in attendance were requested to react to the future of their district in 2. Every district should operatea com- terms of the criteria approved by the Com- plete educational program extending at mission and to report any unusual conditions least from kindergarten through the affecting their district status. twelfth grade. The response to the meetingswas most 3. Although disparity in taxable wealth heartening. Practicallyevery district, with behind each child cannot be completely the exception of a few districts not operating eliminated, districts should be created a school, sent representatives to meet with to reduce the differences. The state the project staff member. The discussion must assume responsibility for equal- with the county boards of education provided ization through a comprehensivepro- substantial information to supplement the gram of state support. reactions of the individual districts. At- tendanceatthe meetings in each county 4. In order to provide a complete educa- ranged from one to several hundredpersons. tional program and serviceson an Many districts supplemented theirpre- economical basis, districts with suf- sentations at the county seat by meetings with ficient enrollment must be created. the staff at the project office. Other districts submitted written suggestions, supplementary 2. CRITERIA FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT data, and recommendations. Also, staff and ORGANIZATION asadopted by Missouri Commission members were invited to several School District Reorganization Commission. district meetings.

5 THE PROJECT CULMINATED IN THE Several plans of district reorganization PREPARATION OF A PLAN FOR were developed. Comparative data relating to SCHOOL DISTRICT each plan were developed and the relative ORGANIZATION advantages and disadvantages of each were weighed. The most promising plans were Although substantial data pertinent to the presented to the Commission for considera- development of a statewide plan of district tion by the members. After a tentative con- organization had been gathered, there was sensus was reached, the members of the little information regarding the school build- Advisory Committee met with the Commis- ings in use. Thus, it was necessary to develop sion for a general discussion of the pro- a school building inventory form and request posals. Following that joint meeting, the staff each district to provide the necessary infor- members, taking account of the ideas ex- mation. The response was excellent with only pressed at the meeting, developed the detailed a handful of districts failing to respond. plan presented in Section V of this report.

6 SECTION II

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION IN MISSOURI

Missouri has a long and varied history administration and substituted the small in its struggle to create the most effective school district of six to nine square miles. school districts to administer public elementary and secondary education. Although the The Civil War interfered greatly with first private school in Missouri was oper- the operation of schools. Many schools were ated by J. B. Tribeau in St. Louis as early closed, the General Assembly abolished the as 1774, it was almost a half century later office of state superintendent, and no ap- before the first public education system was propriations were made for public schools. established by law. The Constitution of 1865 and the laws of 1866 established the office of state superin- EARLY EMPHASIS WAS ON CREATION tendent of schools,provided for a State OF MANY SMALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS Board of Education, and created a system of public schools. The township was established The development of a statewide school as the administrative school district with system to provide adequate educational op- subdistricts under thecontrolof school portunities to all children has been a slow boards. The township board had custody of and tortuous process. Before statehood was all school buildings of the subdistricts and achieved,schools were supported largely had full control over all the high schools through tuition fees and donations. With state- in the township. The laws of 1866 provided hood realized in 1820, Missouri adopted a the framework for organizing schools in cities constitution which authorized the establish- and villages and became the basic law for ment of a public school in each township. today's six-director school districts. The Although some 50 schools were established responsibility for supervising the schools between 1820 and 1833, the township sys- was delegated to an elected county superin- tem never became fully operative. The Geyer tendent of schools. Act, passed in 1839, was the first recognition by the General Assembly of the state's The controversy between the township responsibility for developing and supervising and subdistrict boards due to overlapping a state educational system. It also estab- responsibilities caused the General Assem- lished the office of the state superintendent bly to enact a new school code in 1874. of common schools. The township plan was abolished and the small district system was established. Al- Legislation in1853 provided the next most complete control of education was steps in the development of a state educa- delegated to the citizens in each district. tional system. The state superintendent be- The small school districts multiplied rapidly, came an elected official and was given reso that by 1880 more than 8,000 districts sponsibility to head the system. A county had been created. commissionerof common schools,with general supervision of schools, was author- A new state constitution, adopted in 1875, ized.Eachcongressionaltownship was affirmed the state's responsibility for educa- designated asa school township,but it tion. It specified that the General Assembly could be divided into four school districts. was to establish and maintain free public Thus,the Kelly Act of 1853 practically schools for the instruction of all persons abolished the township as the unit of school between the ages of 6 and 20 years.

7 THE NEED FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT or an area of 50 square miles. At the same REGORGANIZATION WAS RECOGNIZED time, the state aid requirements were revised AS EARLY AS 1900 to make aid available to all districts. With no incentive provided, no district reorgan- New districts continued to be formed so ization resulted from the 1931 legislation. that by 1900 there were 10,499 districts Duringthisperiod,however,thestate operating. The growing number of districts, assumed a portion of the cost of high school many too small for efficient operation, caused tuition and transportation. Thus, the rural many educational leaders to advocateschool childron had a high school education made district consolidation. An annexation law was available to them without requiring school passed in 1895 permitting adjoining districts district consolidation.It is not surprising to annex to a village or city school district. that only 96 districts were eliminated during The first significant consolidation law was the ten-year period from 1930 to 1940. enacted in 1901. It permitted three or more A new state constitution was adopted in common districts or together with asmall 1945. It provided for a State Board of Educa- village district to form a consolidated dis- tion,appointed by the Governor, to have trict to operate elementary and high schools. general supervision of the schools of the The Hickman Mills Consolidated District in state. An appointed Commissioner of Educa- Jackson County, established in 1902, was the tion serves as executive officer of the State first district to be created under this legis- Board and has responsibility for administer- lation. ing the state school system. Continued agitation for more adequate education resultedin the passage of the Buford-Colley Consolidation Law in 1913. It THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION provided for the organization of consolidated LAW OF 1948 GAVE MAJOR IMPETUS TO districts that would have 12 square miles REDUCING THE NUMBER OF or more of territory or200 children of SCHOOL DISTRICTS school age. Financial incentives were also offered and authorization was given for pro- The most effective measure treating the viding transportation. Under this law, 156 problem of the small school districts was consolidated districts were formed by 1920. theSchoolDistrictReorganization Law The total number of districts was reduced to enacted by the General Assembly in April 9,486 districts, including 703 which offered of 1948. Arthur L. Summers, Director of high school courses. District Reorganization and Pupil Transpor- A county unit bill was passed in 1921. It tation in the State Department of Education, transferred the administration of education has summarized its major features in these from the local district to the county. Under words: the law, provision was made for a county board elected by the people, a uniform school 1. A county boardof education tax rate for the county, a county superinten- composed of six members was to be dent of schools with power to improve the elected by the school board members schools, and for local boards in the subdis- of the districts in the county. The tricts of the county with limited responsi- county superintendent was directed to bilities. However, the law was defeated by call the election with in sixty days a referendum in1922 and the small districts after the law became effective July 18, continued. 1948. A county board was created in The General Assembly of 1931 enacted each county of the state by September legislation, creating a county redistricting of 1948. The county superintendent was board in each county with responsibility to designated by law to be the secretary divide the county into enlarged districts. to the county board. To begin with, Each new district was required to have an county board members were elected assessed valuation of not less than $1,500,000 for one, two and three year terms from

8 separate townships and schooldis- ed to follow thesame procedure and tricts, and thereafter elected forthree resubmit the proposed districtsor year terms. revised proposals to the voterswithin a period of two years but no sooner than 2. The following dutiesand respon- one year from the date of the last sibilities were given to countyboards election. of education. a. To complete a study of the g. Subsequent planscould be school districts withina period of six prepared and presented in thesame months and present to the StateBoard manner as previous plans. The county of Education for approvala proposed board was to bea continuing agency to plan of district reorganizationon or study school districts and school prob- before May 1, 1949. lems and submit proposalsas conditions may warrant. b. If the plan were approvedby the State Board, the county boardwould 3. A section on school districtre- submit the proposed districtsto the organization was established by the voters within sixty days. Fora pro- State Board of Education for thepur- posed district to be adoptedrequired pose of advising and assisting ingen- a majority of all the votes cast within eral with the planning and preparation the proposal. of county plans. c. If the proposed plan were dis- 4. State Board of Educationwas approved by the State Board, thecounty board was to be notified and given directed to approveor disapprove all the county plans. However,upon the second reasons for disapproval. The county disapproval of a plan a county board board had sixty days in whichto re- could submit it to the voters without vise the county planas it may deem advisable and return tothe State the approval of the State Board. Board. 5. As an incentiveany newly re- d. Upon the submission ofa organizeddistrict was entitledto revised county plan to the State Board, $25,000 state building aidon a match- the county boardwas to be notified ing basis to constructnew buildings within sixty daysas to approval or needed as a result of the reorganiza- disapproval. If a planwere approved, tion. In 1951 the lawwas amended to it was to be submitted tovoters as increase this aid not to exceed $50,000. approved. If it were disapproved,the county board was directed tosubmit 6. A board of education ofa re- its own plan to voters withinsixty days organized district was authorizedto without the approval of the StateBoard provide transportation for all pupils of Education. residingone mile or more from school. e. County boards were directed to submit proposals to thevoters on 7. A proposed reorganized district or before the first Tuesday in Novem- could not be formed with lessthan ber 1949. $500,000 assessed valuationor fewer than 100 pupils inaverage daily aten- f. Forall proposed districts dance for the precedingyear. In 1955 that were defeated in the firstelec- this was amended to requirea pro- tions, the county boardswere direct- posed district to contain not less than

9 100 square miles of land area or The General Assembly of the State fewer than 200 pupils in ADA. 1 of Missouri should adcpt legislation requiring the State Board of Education to develop a state master plan for The School District Reorganization Law, for school district organization. The which remains in effect in essentially its master plan should take into consider- original form, had a tremendous immediate ation differences in terrain, popula- impact upon school district organization. The tiondensity,androad conditions number of school districts dropped from throughout the state. The plan should 8,422 on June 30, 1948, to 4,F73 four years take into consideration the character- later. Although the 1948 law had many fine istics of adequate school district or- features, several weaknesses are apparent. ganization as outlined in this report. Among these are:(a) the county was too County boundaries should not receive small for a planning unit; (b) no criteria for undue consideration in the formulation adequate school districts were established; of the master plan. In some cases, (c) districts could be created without the school districts comprising all or a approval of the State Board of Education, and part of a given county will be appropri- (d) the county board of )ducation was not ate. In other cases, all or part of more required to submit more \Ilan two proposals than one county may be the best geo- to the voters. graphic area for a given school district. The following are proposed as minimum standards for reorganiza- THE PRESS FOR MAJOR SCHOOL tion: DISTRICT REORGANIZATION HAS CONTINUED IN RECENT YEARS (1) The provision of both elementary and secondary education should be Continued concern regarding the inade- a function of every school district in quate school district organization has been Missouri. evident during recent years. The Missouri Citizens Commission for the Study of Edu- (2) No school district in urban or cation, appointed by the the State Board of suburban areas of the state should have Education, made its report in 1952. The fewer than 1,000 students in Grades study covered various aspects of elementary 9 through 12; 19500 is a preferred and secondary education. An important phase figure. of the report emphasized the w-Ned for further school district reorganization and prcposed (3) No school district in rural areas ways of strengthening the reorganization should have fewer than 500 students in procedure. Grades 9 through 12; 750 students is a The most recent major study treating preferred figure. school district reorganization was conducted by the Academy for Educational Development, (4) An essential criterion for the Incorporated. The report, whichwas submit- organization of school districts should ted to the Gevernor's Conference on Education be the reduction of disparities in the in September 1966, treated several aspects assessed valuation of property behind of public education. In Chapter III- Local each child. 2 School Districts, the following recommendation appears: 1. Arthur L. Summers, SCHOOL DIS- TRICT DEVELOPMENT IN MISSOURI, The 2. The Academy for Educational Develop- Great Plains School District Organization ment, LOOKING AHEAD TO BETTER EDU- Project, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1968, pp. 12-15. CATION IN MISSOURI, 1966, p. 40.

10 The report also recommends increased tional program because of the excessive authority for school district reorganization number of small high school districts. in the State Board of Education, the elimina- The general recognition of the need for tion of county boards of education, and i,tate statewide planning culminated in the legisla- financial incentives for school districtre- tion by the 1967 General Assembly, estab- organization. lishing the Missouri School District Reor- The study of vocational-technical educa- ganization Commission. The Commission has tion in the public schools, sponsored by the responsibility for developing a statewide plan Governor's office in 1965 and 1966,was of school district organization which is to not specifically related to school district be proposed to the Missouri General Assembly organization. However, the report, "A Gate- atits1969 session.This report is the way to Higher Economic Levels", emphasizes response of the Commission to the charge the general lack of a comprehensivevoca- given to it by the General Assembly.

TABLE 1

NUMBER OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MISSOURI, 1940-1968 School Districts Operating Operating School Year Elementary and Elementary Operating Ending June 30 Total High Schools Schools Only No School

1940 8,661 848 7,263 550 1942 8,632 822 6,923 887 1944 8,605 753 6,421 1,431 1946 8,603 720 5,944 1,939 1948 8,422 686 5,669 2,067

1949 8,326 677 5,526 2,123 1950 6,348 652 4,208 1,488 1951 5,790 629 3,835 1,326 1952 4,573 609 3,046 918 1953 4,331 595 2,812 924

1954 4,022 586 2,499 937 1955 3,794 579 2,344 8 71 1956 3,431 574 2,001 856 1957 2,890 560 1,594 736 1958 2,629 563 1,396 680

1959 2,254 541 1,158 555 1960 1,921 535 959 427 1961 1,732 531 821 380 1962 1,633 526 731 376 1963 1,542 523 667 352

1964 1,310 512 426 372 1965 1,028 503 339 186 1966 909 489 282 138 1967 815 478 238 99 1968 786 474 218 94 SOURCE: Compiled from records at the State Department of Education.

11 PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Wide differences in the current school ORGANIZATION INDICATES SUBSTANTIAL district organization from county to county PROGRESS are apparent from a studyof the district map which appears at theend of this report. It depicts the boundaries of the 786 school districtsof Missouri as they existed on June 30, 1968. Table 2 presents the current district data in tabular form by counties. An examination Missouri has made substantial progress of the map and Table 2 leads to these con- in reducing the number of school districts. The rapid period of growth resulted in a clusions: total of 10,499 districts by 1900. Forty years of limited reorganization reduced the number of districts to 8,661 by 1940. The trend of 1. Districts vary widely in areaand many school district reorganization since that districtboundaries are highly ir- date is shown in Table 1. Pertinent observations based on an ex- regular. amination of the data in Table 1 include: 2. Four counties (Knox, McDonald, Ralls, and Schuyler) have only one school district. 1. The total number of districts has declined substantially, dropping from 8,661 in 1940 to 786 by 1968. 3. Exactly half of the counties havefive or fewer districts. 2. The major thrust in the reduction of school districts occurred after the 4. Eighteen counties have from 11 to 25 passage of the SchoolReorganization districts each. Law in1948.Within a three-year period the number of districts declined from 8,326 to 4,573. 5. These 18counties account for 295 districts. In contrast, the 18 counties with the fewest districts have only31 3. The number of districts operating no districts. school has dropped from a peak of 2,123 in 1949 to 94 by 1968. 6. In 49 counties there are nodistricts operating elementary schools only. 4. A similarly drastic reduction in the number of districts operating elementary schools only has resulted in 218 7. St. Louis County with 25 districtsand districtsin1 -68ascontrasted to Jackson County with 12 districts are 5,526 districtF .0 years earlier. the only counties which have morethan eight districts operating high schools.

5. The decline in the number ofdistricts operating elementary and high schools 8. Nine counties have only onedistrict has been much less severe. Since 1959, operating a high school, 17 counties the number has been reduced by only have two such districts, and 26*have 67 districts. three such districts.

12 TABLE 2

NUMBER OF MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY TYPE OF SCHOOL . JULY 1, 1968

Number of Districts Number of Districts Operating Operating Elementary Elementary ElementarySchools Elementary Schools and High Only or and High Only or County Schools None Total County Schools None Total

Adair 3 7 Daviess 0r 6 Andrew 3 1 4 DeKalb 4 1 5 Atchison 3 1 4 Dent 1 4 5 Audrain 3 15 18 Douglas 1 2 3 Barry 6 8 14 Dunklin 7 1 8

Barton 3 3 Franklin 6 7 13 Bates 6 1 7 Gasconade 3 ...... 3 Benton 3 5 8 Gentry 3 3 Bollinger 4 4 Greene 8 __ 8 Boone 6 6 12 Grundy 4 1 5

Buchanan 4 1 5 Harrison 6 _,..._ 6 Butler 5 3 8 Henry 5 17 22 Caldwell 5 4 9 Hickory 4 __ 4 Callaway 4 7 11 Holt 3 ....._ 3 Camden 4 4 Howard 3 5 8

Cape Girardeau4 5 9 Howell 3 6 9 Carroll 6 1 7 Iron 3 1 4 Carter 2 __ 2 Jackson 12 2 14 Cass 8 16 24 Jasper 7 5 12 Cedar 2 __ 2 Jefferson 8 5 13

Chariton 4 6 10 Johnson 6 3 9 Christian 7 __ 7 Knox 1 __ 1 Clark 3 8 11 Laclede 2 12 14 Clay 5 3.7 22 Lafayette 6 __ 6 Clinton 3 __ 3 Lawrence 6 _ 6

Cole 4 1 5 Lewis 2 __ 2 Cooper 5 1 6 Lincoln 4 .... 4 Crawford 3 __ 3 Linn 5 __ 5 Dade 4 __ 4 Livingston 3 1 4 Dallas 2 __ 2 McDonald 1 __ 1

13 TABLE 2 (Continued)

Number of Districts Number of Districts Operating Operating Elementary Elementary Elementary Schools ElementarySchools and High Only or and High Only or County Schools None Total County Schools None Total

Macon 7 3 10 Ripley 2 3 5 Madison 2 2 St. Charles 5 5 Maries 2 2 4 St. Clair 4 4 8 Marion 3 2 5 St. Francois 5 5 10 Mercer 3 3 Ste. Genevieve 1 1 2

Miller 5 5 St. Louis 25 25 Mississippi 2 2 Saline 4 17 21 Moniteau 3 3 6 Schuyler 1 1 Monroe 3 4 7 Scotland 2 6 8 Montgomery 2 2 Scott 6 1 7

Morgan 2 2 Shannon 3 4 7 New Madrid 7 1 8 Shelby 2 2 Newton 4 1 5 Stoddard 7 7 Nodaway 7 7 Stone 5 5 Oregon 4 4 Sullivan 3 3

Osage 3 3 Taney 4 4 8 Ozark 3 2 5 Texas 5 9 14 Pemiscot 6 1 7 Vernon 6 6 Perry 1 20 21 Warren 2 =.alIND 2 Pettis 5 9 14 Washington 2 4 6

Phelps 3 7 10 Wayne 2 5 7 Pike 3 2 5 Webster 4 4

OMB =MD Platte 4 .1=10 INIM 4 Worth 2 2 Polk 6 6 Wright 4 1 5 Pulaski 4 3 7 CitySt. Louis 1 Ola.IIMII 1

Putnam 1 1 2 TOTAL 474 312 786 Ral ls 1 .1MO 1 Randolph 5 5 10 Ray 5 1 6 Reynolds 4 1 5

SOURCE: Compiled from records at the State Department of Education.

14 MOST STATES HAVE EXCEEDED 2. Ten states and theDistrict of Columbia MISSOURI IN SCHOOL DISTRICT each have fewer than 70 districts. REORGANIZATION 3. Missouri ranks fourth in number of It is useful to compare the current status nonoperating school districts, being of school district organization in Missouri exceeded only by New York, Nebraska, with the situation in other states, although and South Dakota. recognizing full well that conditions may vary from state to state. Table 3 presents com- 4. Twenty-one states have eliminated all parative data relating to number of school nonoperating districts; 18 additional districts by type, the area in square miles, states each have ten or fewer districts and the 1967-68 enrollment for each state. of this type. Among the pertinent conclusions which can be drawn from Table 3 are the following: 5. Missouri has an area of 69,270 square miles; 19 states exceed it in area. 1. Missouri ranks ninth in number of school districts; only Nebraska, New 6. Missouri has a public school enroll- York, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Califor- ment of 991,219 pupils; 14 states have nia, Texas, Illinois, and South Dakota a larger enrollment. have more districts.

TABLE 3

NUMBER OF OPERATING AND NONOPERATING SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY STATES, 1967-68 Fall Enrollment, Rank by Number of School Districts Area in Elementary Number of Non- Square and Secondary, State Districts Total Operatingoperating Miles 1967-68

Alabama 37 118 118 0 51,078 830,885 Alaska 47 27 27 0 586,400 66,006 Arizona 25 297 295 2 113,580 394,000 Arkansas 19.5 395 393 2 52,725 451,482 California 5 1,105 1,101 4 156,803 4,500,000

Colorado 30 181 181 0 103,967 509,000 Connecticut 32 179 178 1 4,899 609,577 Delaware 44 51 50 1 1,978 117,560 District of Columbia 50.5 1 1 0 61 149,306 Florida 41 67 67 0 54,262 1,299,954

Georgia 28 195 194 1 58,518 1,094,572 Hawaii 50.5 1 1 0 6,424 169,004 Idaho 38 117 117 0 82,808 177,604 Illinois 3 1,315 1,310 5 55,947 2,188,000 Indiana 19.5 395 370 25 36,205 1,181,137

Iowa 15 455 445 10 55,986 634,000 Kansas 23 336 335 1 82,113 520,756 Kentucky 27 199 199 o 40,109 679,600

15 TABLE 3 (Continued) Fall Enrollment, Rank by Number of School Districts Area in Elementary Number of Non- Square and Secondary, State Districts Total Operating operating, Miles 1967-68 Louisiana 42 66 66 0 45,177 840,314 Maine 24 310 257 53 31,040 229,200 Maryland 48 24 24 0 9,887 826,073 Massachusetts 18 397 391 6 7,907 1,083,841 Michigan 10 718 708 10 57,022 2,042,000 Minnesota 6 1,100 1,095 5 80,009 865,000 Mississippi 35 149 149 0 47,420 582,588

MISSOURI 9 765 675 90 69,270 991,219 Montana 12 675 600 75 146,316 171,000 Nebraska 1 2,175 1,800 375 76,653 324,070 Nevada 49 17 17 0 109,802 111,580 New Hampshire 29 183 169 14 9,024 138,497

New Jersey 14 593 570 23 7,522 1,368,000 New Mexico 40 90 90 0 121,511 278,734 New York 8 852 761 91 47,929 3,318,000 North Carolina 33 160 160 0 49,142 1,193,267 North Dakota 16 498 438 60 70,154 147,844

Ohio 11 691 691 0 41,122 2,358,900 Oklahoma 7 949 940 9 69,283 592,901 Oregon 21 376 371 5 96,350 462,326 Pennsylvania 13 597 590 7 45,045 2,256,000 Rhode Island 45.5 40 40 0 1,058 166,776

South Carolina 39 106 106 0 30,594 644,300 South Dakota 2 1,804 1,208 596 76,536 167,563 Tennessee 34 151 151 0 41,961 874,333 Taxas 4 1,273 1,260 13 263,644 2,572,000 Utah 45.5 40 40 0 82,346 297,714

Vermont 26 273 260 13 9,278 90,993 Virginia 36 132 132 0 39,899 1,017,000 Washington 22 341 335 6 66,977 781,500 West Virginia 43 55 55 0 24,090 415,928 Wisconsin 17 490 487 3 54,715 921,032 Wyoming 31 180 177 3 97,506 85,388

TOTAL 21,704 20,195 1,509 3,569,952 43,788,324

SOURCE: Research Report 1967-R19, Research Division, National Education Association, "Estimates of School Statistics, 1967-68", pp. 24-25.

16 SECTION III

THE NEED FOR FURTHER SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

Attention has already been directed to the a comprehensive programof ele- development of school district organization mentary and secondary education. in Missouri. The number of school districts Some authorities include nursery has dropped from 8,661 in 1940 to 786 on schools, kindergarten, junior col- July 1, 1968. During the comparable period leges, and adult education. public school enrollments have jumped from 700,640 in 1939-40 to 1,002,499 in 1966-67. a complete range ofeducational The reduction in the number of school services including: special classes districts while enrollments have been growing for physically and mentally handi- might lead to the assumption that adequate capped; remedial programs for un- progress has been made and that no further derachievers; special programs for action is required. However, the test of the academically gifted pupils; and adequacy of district organization is not in health,guidance,and counseling the number of districts which have been services for all pupils. eliminated, but in the nature and scope of the educational programs and services which one well-defined community, or a can be supplied by the remainingdistricts. group of interrelatedcommunities Other factors, such as the shifting and con- which form a natural socioeconomic centration of population, the impact of recent area. birth trends, and equity in the support of education,alsoemphsizetheneed for specialized administrative and su- further school district reorganization. The pervisory personnel and teachers significance of each of these factors is ex with adequate preparation in all mined in this section. areas taught. the necessary resources to support WIDE DIFFERENCES EXIST IN THE financially the kind of educational SCOPE AND NATURE OF PRESENT program implied by the abovecrite- EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS 1 ria. Statements of economic criteria may refer to the total incomeavail- The Great Plains School District Reorgan- able to the district or its financial ization Project, involving the states of Iowa, efficiency as measured by cost per Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, has just pupil.2 been completed. In one of its recent publications, the purposes of any school system are A major concern for vocational education described in these terms: could well be added to the above statement. State school system structure should provide:

2. SIZE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGAN- 1. Data presented here have been com- IZATION,GreatPlainsSchoolDistrict piled from records at the State Department Organization Project, Vol. 2, No. 4, June 1968, of Education. p. 1.

17 The criteria for school district reorgan- organized districts. Thus, it becomes pos- ization adopted by the Missouri School Dis- sible to separate the districts intothese trict Reorganization Commission, previously three categories, based upon the typeof presented in Section I, have the same goal school being operated: and purposes as the above statement from the Great Plains Project. The two statements TYPE OF NUMBER OF regarding a state school system can well SCHOOL DISTRICTS serve as a backdropfor a view of public elementary and secondary school education as- No school 94 it functions in Missouri at the present time. Various aspects of the school system will be Elementary school only 218 examined. Elementary and.high school 474

THE YEARS OF EDUCATION VARY BY TOTAL 786 TYPE OF DISTRICT

The 786 school districts in existence on The number of districts by type ofschool July 1,1968, can be classified in various being operated is shown onFigure I for ways. The StateDepartment of Education, in each county. Each of these threecategories its annual progress report of schooldistrict of districts will be treated on thebasis of mergers, divides the districtsinto these educational program. categories: TYPE OF NUMBER OF DISTRICT DISTRICTS THE DISTRICTS WITHOUTSCHOOLS Three-director common HAVE NO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS Operating schools 94 Nonoperating schools 94 There is no educational programto be Total 188 examined in the 94 distri.ctswhich do not conduct a school. Either there are nochil- Six-director elementary dren in these districts, or thechildren are City and town 16 being educated in nonpublicschools, or the Consolidated 30 districtsare sending theirchildren to a Reorganized 78 neighboring district and payingtuition for Total 124 them. The only purpose for aschool district is to operate a school for theeducation Six-director high school ofitschildren.If any district does not City and town 58 operate a school,it has abdicated its re- to Consolidated 37 sponsibility and no longer has any reason Reorganized 379 exist. In far too many instances,districts Total 474 with no schools have continuedto exist because they provide aconvenient tax haven, Total of all districts 786 permitting property located inthose districts to escape paying its fairshare of the cost of education. For purposes of examing the educational An examination of Figure Ireveals that program, there is littlesignificance in dif- 88 counties have no nonoperatingdistricts. ferentiating between three-director or six- Eight counties, each having fiveto ten such director districts nor in thedifferences districts, account for 57 of the94 districts among city and town,consolidated, and re- having no school.

18 Annum SCANDLESSCOTLAND CLASS warm 2 NAMINION PLITNAN I 3 1 2 0 1 3 6 3 o I 7 0 0 o o 3 3 0 0 OINTItY o SULUYAN 3 5 0 *Milt 0 3 3 EN ON Nou o WNW 3 LEWIS FIGURE I 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 o 2 0 ANDatv 0 1 o 0 NUMBER OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS 0 0 3 DUALS 6 o LINN 1 4 o 0 SON1.11Y MARION BY COUNTIES1 JULY I, 1968 1 o 0 2 3 4 o 0 0 2 CALOMEL. 0 0 1 cumin 0 3 5 4 110111105 00 UPPER NUMBER INDICATES PUCHANAN 0 0 mecum 0 3 HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS PLATTE a 5 4 4 CLAY 5 4 0 00 MIDDLE NUMBER INDICATES 0 5 I I ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS OPERATING 0 12 0 minium 3 0 wow 5 uaeoui 00 LOWER NUMBER INDICATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS CLOSED 6 10 YOST 4 AMMON 6 'mum 0 12 CALLAWAY 2 0 2 -1.1.2. 0 PETTIS 4 0 5 r- 7 S t MAMAS CAM t 0imers/42 6 5 0 0 5 7 o 25 6 2 0 0 0 CITY OP 2 NONITEAU SASCO- 0 ST. LOUIS 9 I OWE MAK 0 7 3 mucus ST. LOUIS NEWRY -__t- NOOSAN 3 4 3 3 SEXTON O I 6 SATES 5 o o z 0 7 6 7 . o o 3 WILLER 0 10 o I 2 5 SAMS2 0 3 ST. CI 1 CMIAPPOOIS CLAut CANOES 0 1 4 4 3 2 1 YINOON I NICEORY 0 3 MILANO 0 6 3 4 0 0 I 5 0 3 5 o cam 0 SAU.All 4 3 6 WASINNITON 0 o 2 POLK SENT 2 MON ft MASCO% 0 0 2 0 6 ISADISON &wow o 0 12 4 3 DAS( o 0 nicAs 0 NEYNOLOS z 0 4 4 o 4 WOMEN 0 0 0 5 MANN= 2 SOUSE 4 I JASKII 0 4 WAYNE 0 3 s $ 0 7 LAwasnes 0 I o 1 3 2 SOLLINSIDI 5 0 6 o 0 I 3 0 0 3 ainsmut Donuts wan 2 ammo 0 1 2 4 STONE z O -7-10 solve 1 WIRY o o 3 041005 0 0 5 6 5 ITAUIY ovum 6 4 RIPLEY 2 3 C OONALIII 7 0 4 3 0 0 2 0 1 4 2 o 1 0 I o 0 0

PEINSCOT 6 7 I 1 0 MOWN

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN DISTRICTS were taught by 941 classroom teachers. Thus, OPERATING ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS the classrooms had an average enrollment ONLY ARE VERY LIMITED of approximately 24 pupils each. In general, the instructional program extended from grades 1-8. Only 13 districts offered kinder- During the 1966-67 school year 235 school garten instruction. Table 4 indicates the wide districts operated elementary schools only. range in the number of pupils enrolled in These schools enrolled 22,318 pupils who these districts.

19 TABLE 4 schools and impossible in many. For example, in half of the districts the enrollment per ENROLLMENT IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS grade was one to five pupils. Within these OPERATING ELEMENTARY elementary schools there were 71 grades SCHOOLS ONLY, 1966-67 enrolling only .one pupil each, 140 grades with two pupils each, and 235 grades with three pupils each. The opportunity of having pupils NUMBER OF interact or compete with each other is lost NUMBER OF PUPILS DISTRICTS in such a setting. In these elementary schools, tbe classroom teacher had the responsibilityfor the Less than 20 13 entire instructional program. Professional 20 29 39 personnelto supplement the work of the 30 39 28 classroom teacher were not provided. Spec- 40 49 31 ialists in such subjects as music, art, science, home economics, and industrial arts were 50 59 20 conspicuous by their absence. Special service 60 69 11 personnel, such as librarians, instrumental 70 79 7 music instructors, nurses, remedial teach- 80 89 8 ers, counselors, and speech therapists were practically nonexistent. Science laboratories, 90 99 7 shops, home economics facilities, and li- 100 124 18 braries, which are essential for a compre- 125 149 10 hensive program in the seventh and eighth 150 174 11 grades, were not provided. Thus, the nature and quality of the instructional program de- 175 199 6 pends entirely on the ingenuity and ability 200 299 15 of the individual classroom teacher, working 300 399 5 in isolation, and directing the work of pupils 400 and Over 6* in all subjects in two to eight grades. Despite the difficulty of the task in these TOTAL 235 elementary school districts, many of the teachers had a minimum of preparation. An analysis of the 1967-68 classification re- * Includes districts with enrollments of 439, cords at the State Department of Education 442, 466, 480, 797, and 947 respectively. indicated the number of college credits held by the teachers in elementary school districts to be as follows: Almost half of the districts (111 of 235) had fewer than 50 pupils each. One or two teachers comprised the entire staff in each NUMBER OF NUMBER OF of these smaller schools. Each teacher had CREDITS TEACHERS from four to eight grades in the room. In the 50 districts with enrollments of 50 to 99 Less than 90 157 pupils, each district had two to four teachers. Only as enrollments approached or exceeded 90 119 151 200 pupils would it be feasible to have one teacher for each grade; not more than 32 120 149 511 districts were in this fortunate category. Grouping pupils within a grade according 150 and More 137 toability or interest for more effective instructionisdifficultin most of these TOTAL 956

1 In the three-director elementary districts, TABLE 5 78 of the 211 teachers had too few college credits to meet the state classification cri- THE DISTRIBUTION OF DISTRICTS terion. In the six-director dependent elemen- MAINTAINING ELEMENTARY AND tary districts, 94 of the 447 teachers had HIGH SCHOOLS BY SIZE OF fewer than 96 college credits, which is the ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (GRADES 1-8) number required to meet the classification ENROLLMENT, 1966-67 criterion.In the six-director independent elementary school districts, 40 of the 298 teachers had fewer than 120 college credits, SIZE OF NUMBER OF which is the number required to meet the ENROLLMENTS DISTRICTS classification requirement. The 1967-68 reports also indicated that 50 99 17 in all these elementary school districts there 100 149 34 were only 26 principals (seven of whom were 150 199 31 part time). Thus, in practically all of the 200 249 40 districts, the county superintendentwas the 25( 299 30 instructional supervisor. Only four librar- 300 349 29 ians including two who were part timewere 350 399 20 employed. Remedial readingwas practically the only special service; itwas provided on 400 449 19 a full or part-time basis in 45 districts. Only 450 499 27 21 of these districts offered kindergarten 500 599 39 instruction. 600 699 21 700 799 24 The teachers in these elementary school 800 899 15 districts are also the least well paid. In 900 999 15 1966-67 the teachers in these schoolsre- 1,000 1,999 70 ceived an average salary of $4,601as contrasted to an average salary of $6,100 for 2,000 2,999 15 the elementary school teachers in districts 3,000 3,999 13 operating elementary and high schools. 4,000 4,999 5 5,000 5,999 4 6,000 6,999 5 7,000 and Over 14*

TOTAL 485 *Includes districts with enrollments of 7,133, 8,084, 9,063, 9,422, 10,346, 10,442, EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN DISTRICTS 10,623, 11,287,12,934,13,914,15,583, OPERATING ELEMENTARY AND 67,362, and 87,397 respectively. HIGH SCHOOLS DIFFER WIDELY Although many districts have large ele- In the 1966-67 school year, 485 districts mentary school enrollments, the enrollments operated elementary and secondary school in the smaller districts are somewhatcom- programs. In these districts, the elementary parable to those found in districts operating school (grades 1-8) enrollment ranged from elementary schools only. For example, 152 53to87,397pupils.The distribution of of the 485 districts have enrollments of 50to districts by elementary school enrollments 299 pupils as did 113 of the 235 districts is presented in Table 5. operating elementary schools only. With these

21 small enrollments, there is practically no Elementary (grades 1-6), junior possibility of providing a full-time principal high school (grades 7-9), senior tosupervise the program, no chance of high school (grades 10-12) 69 having a qualified ,:lementary school librarian,and few opportunitiesof employing Elementary (grades 1-6), special personnel to supplement the work high school (grades 7-12) 60 fo the classroom teachers. These smaller elementary schools in Elementary (grades 1-7), districts which also provide high school high school (grades 8-12) 15 instruction do have some advantages over similar- sized schoolsin the elementary Elementary (grades 1-5), school. districts. By using high school teach- middle school (grades 6-8), ers it is possible to departmentalize some high school (grades 9-12) 9 instruction in grades 7 and 8. Also, students in these grades may have some opportunity Elementary (grades 1-4), to take courses in industrial arts and home middle school (grades 5-8), economics and to participate in instrumental high school (grades 9-12) 6 music instruction. Slightly more than half of the high school Elementary (grades 1-7), junior districts (257 of 435) provided kindergarten high school (grade 81, senior instruction. In 16 counties not a single child high school (grades 9-12) 5 had the opportunity of attending a public school kindergarten. With the growing national emphasis on kindergarten and prekinder- The other districts used a variety of grade garten instruction, it is rather shocking to combinations, but none of those combinations findso many Missouri school districts were found in more thanthree schools each. neglecting this phase of theeudcational Grades 9-12 were combined in the high program. school in 317 districts. The need for remov- Although the differences in the educational ing grades 7 and 8 from the elementary programs inthe elementary schools are school was recognized by more than 250 substantial,the differences become even districts. The most col:mon method was to more significant at the highschool level. combine grades 7 and 8 as a junior high High school organization takes many forms schcol. In the small districts this arrange- in Missouri. The most prevalent is the four- ment grouped a relatively small numberof year school, comprising grades'9- 12. This students with three or four teachers. The is also the grouping used in reporting to the major effect was to create a departmental- State Department of Education. The number ized upper grade school rather than a com- of districts using each form of school organ- prehensive junior high school. Many small ization, as reported in the Missouri School districts were includedin the 60 which Directory, 1967-68, are as follows: grouped grades 7-12 into one hign school unit. Most of the larger districts limited the elementary school to six gr9des and established a three-year junicf high school and TYPE OF NUMBER OF a three-year seniorhigh school. The mid- ORGANIZATION DISTRICTS dleschool,encompassing grades 5-8 or grades 6-8, which is being widely discussed, Elementary (grades 1-6), junior had received little acceptance inMissouri. high school (grades 7-8), senior More than one-fourth of the districts treat high school (grades 9-12) 172 the seventh and eighth grades as an integral part of the elementary school. It is apparent Elementary (grades 1-8), high that grades 7and 8 are the "neglected school (grades 9-12) 125 orphans" in many school districts.

22 Missouri uses a classification system in HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL its school districts. Schools are classified as AAA, AA, A, and U (unclassified), depend- CLASS AAA Have at least two years ing upon the scope and nature of their pro- of administrativc nr supervisory ex- grams. A publication of the StateDepartment perience; have as a minimum a mas- of Education, HANDBOOK FOR CLASSIFICA- ters degree (after July 1, 1972) a TION ANT ACCREDITATION OF THE TOTAL two-year graduate program); have a SCHOOL PROGRAM, issued in January 1968, secondary principal's certificate; de- presents the current requirements for clas- vote full time to administrative and sification. Separate sections are devoted to: supervisory duties. CLASS AA Have at least two years I. Objectives and Administration of the of teaching experience, have a mas- Classification and Accreditation Pro- ter's degree; have a secondary princi- gram. pal's certificate; devote full time to principal's duties in a high school II. Brief Definitions Relative to Classifi- having 375 or more students, three- cation and Accreditation of Missouri fourths time in a high school having Public School Systems. 250 to 375 students, and one-half time in a high school having 249 or fewer III. Goals to Be Achieved by All Classified students. and Accredited School Dist 'lots. CLASS A In a high school having IV. Standards to Be Met by All Classified 375 or more students, meet AA re- and Accredited School Districts. quirements. In a high school having fewer than 375 students have as a V. Standards for District Administrative minimum a baccalaureate degree; have Officers. a permanent secondary teaching certificate; devote three-fourths time to VI. Standardsfor High Schools (Grades principal'sduties in a high school 9-12). having 250 to 375 students, one-half time in a high school having 125 to VII. Standards for Junior High Schools. 250 students, and one-fourth time in a high school having 124 or fewer stu- VIII. Standards for Elementary Schools. dents.

HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND SUPERVISORS The specific standards for high school CLASS AAA Have as minimum a classification relate to:(1) requiremeni,s for baccalaureatedegreewith special high school principals and assistants to preparation and certification in the principals, (2) requirements for high school subject matter field in which they teach; teachers, supervisors, and teacher aides, atleast 25 per cent (exclusive of (3) requirements for librarian, library ma- administrators)havecompleteda terials,and textbooks,(4) teaching load, master's degree or 30 semester hours (5) special education,(6) special services, of graduate credit (with a major in an (7) pupil personnel services, (8) curriculum, appropriate subject matter area for (9) length of class period, and (10) instruc- new employees after July 1, 1969). tional media. Some of the differences in the Supervisors or subject matter special- requirements for classification are as fol- ists who spend one-half time or more lows: consulting, supervising, or directing

23 teachers in an instructional area must 500 students devotes as a minimum be certificated in the subject matter one-half time to library duties. area and hold a master's degree(with a major in the areafor new super- CLASS ASame as Class AA, except visors or subject matter specialists in a high school with fewer than500 afterJuly 1, 1969). students a teacher (should have some courses in library science,but not CLASS AA Same as Class AAA, necessarily certificated as a librar- except 10 per cent of the teachers ian) may serve as librarian.The (exclusive of administrators) must teacher must devote one-half time to have completed a master's degree or library serving250 to 499students 30 semester hours of graduate work. and one-fourth time to library serv- Supervisors or subject matter special- ing249or fewer students. ists must have graduate credit in the area, but are not requiredto have a A substantial difference appears inthe master's degree. curriculum requirements for the threenigh school classifications. Table 6summarizes CLASS AAll teachers, supervisors, the requirements. and subject matter specialists shall The Class AAA schools are requiredto have as a minimum a baccalaureate offer 481/2units of credit as contrasted to degree with special preparaticnand a minimum of37 1/2units for Class AA -z;ertificationinthesubject matter schools and only24 1/2units for Class A field in which they teach. schools. Seventeen units of credit are required for graduation. Thus, in the ClassA LIBRARIANS schools, after taking into account thosesub- jects which are primarily for girls orfor CLASS AAA Have a full-time librar- boys, practically no electives areavailable. ian who possesses at least a bac- All students, regardless of ability, interest, calaureate degree and is certificated or need, must take the samesubjects. In for library work. contrast, the Class AAA schools offertwice as many courses, whichpermits each stu- CLASS AA Same as Class AAA, ex- dent to select a program most usefulto him. cept in a high school with fewer than

24 TABLE 6

THE MINIMUM CURRICULUM OFFERINGS FOR HIGH SCHOOL CLASSIFICATION

Number of Units of Credit Required for Class Class Class Subject Areas AAA AA A

Language Arts 4 4 3 Speech and/or Dramatics 2 1 Foreign Language * 4 2 Social Studies 5 4 3

Mathematics 4 3 2 Science 4 3 2 Fine Arts 4 2 1 Business and Office Education 5 3 2

Home Economics ** 3 3 2 Vocational Agriculture ** 3 3 3 Industrial Arts 3 3 Trade and Industrial Subjects and/or J Distributive Education ** 6 2

Physical Education 1 1 1 Health i Electives from Nonvocational Subjects 3 5

Minimum Units of Credit Required 48i 37i 2 4i

*Class AAA schools must offer two differentlanguages, except that small schools may offer three unitsin one foreign language; in Class AA schools onlyone foreign language is required.

**Vocational education requirementsmay be fulfilled by providing the opportunity for students to attendneighboring districts or area vocational schools and paying tuitionand transportation costs thereto. Vocational agriculture offering may be waived in certain districts.

25 Unfortunately, the high schools in less county. Of the 474 districts operatinghigh than one-third of the districts qualifyfor schools, 135 have high schools classified as Class AAA ratings. Table 7 presents the AAA, 87 as AA, 243 as A, and in nine number of high schools by ratings for each districts the high school is unclassified.

TABLE 7

HIGH SCHOOLS BY CLASSIFICATIONIN EACH COUNTY, JUNE 1968 Classification Classification A and A and County AAA AA U Total County AAA AA U Total

Adair 1 2 3 Cole 1 3* 4 Andrew 1 2 3 Cooper 1 4 5 Atchison 1 2 3 Crawford 2 1 3 Audrain 2 1 3 Dade 4 4 Barry 2 4 6 Dallas 1 1 2

Barton 1 2 3 D aviess 6 6 Bates 1 5 6 D eKalb 4 4 Benton 1 2 3 D ent 1 1 Bollinger 1 3* 4 Douglas 1 1 Boone 2 4 6 Dunklin 2 4 1 7 6 Buchanan 1 3 4 Franklin 4 1 1 Butler 1 4 5 Gasconade 1 1 1 3 1 3 Caldwell 1 4 5 Gentry 2 4 8 Callaway 1 1 2 4 Greene 1 3 3* 4 Camden 1 3 4 Grundy 1 Cape Girardeau 2 2 4 Harrison 1 5 6 5 Carroll 1 5 6 Henry 1 1 3 2 2 Hickory -- 4 4 Carter 3 Cass 4 1 3 8 Holt 3 3 Cedar 1 1 2 Howard 2 1 3 Chariton 1 3 4 Howell 1 1 1 3 3 Christian 1 6 7 Iron 3* 12 Clark 1 2 3 Jackson 9 2, 7 Clay 3 1 1 5 Jasper 4 1 1 8 Clinton 1 1 1 3 Jefferson 7 --

26 TABLE 7 (Continued) Classification Classification A and A and County AAAAA U Total County AAAAA U Total

Johns on 2 1 3 6 Putnam 1 1 Knox -- 1 -.... 1 Rails 1 1 Laclede 1 1 2 Randolph 1 4 5 Lafayette 2 1 3 6 Ray 1 4 5 Lawrence 2 2 2 6 Reynolds 4* 4

Lewis 1 1 2 Ripley 1 1 2 Lincoln 1 3 4 St. Charles 5 5 Linn 2 __ 3 5 St. Clair -- 1 3* 4 Livingston 1 _..._ 2 3 St. Francois 4 1 5 McDonald -- 1 1 Ste. Genevieve 1 1

Macon 1 1 5 7 St. Louis 23 2 25 Madison 1 -- 1 2 Saline 1 2 1 4 M aides -- 2 2 Schuyler 1 1 Marion 1 1 1 3 Scotland 1 1 2 Merc er 1 2 3 Scott 2 2 2 6

Miller 1 1 3 5 Shannon 3 3 Mississippi 1 1 2 Shelby 2 2 Moniteau -- 2 1 3 Stoddard 1 3 3 7 Monroe 2 1* 3 Stone __ 5 5 Montgomery __ 2 2 Sullivan 1 2 3

Morgan 1 1 2 Taney 1 1 2 4 New Madrid 2 5 7 Texas 1 1 3 5 Newton 1 2 1 4 Vernon 1 __ 5* 6 Nodaway 1 2 4 7 Warren -- __ 2 2 Oregon 2 2 4 Washington 1 __ 1 2

Os age 2 1 3 Wayne __ 1 1 2 Ozark 1 2 3 Webster 1 __ 3 4 Pemiscot 4 2 6 Worth __ __ 2 2 __ Perry 1 1 Wright 1 3* 4 Pettis 1 -- 4 5 CitySt. Louis 1 __ __ 1

Phelps 1 1 1 3 TOTAL 135 87252 474 Pike 2 1 3 Platte 1 __ 3 4 Polk 1 5 6 Pulaski 1 3 4

*Includes one unclassified high school.

27 The distribution within the state of the be used as another measure ofequality of high schools by classification is shown by educational opportunity. Schools must meet Figures II and III.Figure II presents the prescribed standards relating to staff, pro- location of the Class AAA and Class AA gram, and facilities in orderto attain and high schools; Figure III shows the Class A hold membership inthe Association.In and unclassified high schools. Missouri only 102 of the 474 districts have Itisrather shocking to note that 46 high schools which are accredited by the counties are without an AAA high school. NorthCentralAssociation of Secondary In 14 counties there is neither an AAA or Schools. In 60 of the 114 counties no high an AA high school. schools hold membership in the Association. The proportion of school districts having The number of units of approvedcredits their high schools accredited by the North offered by the high schools in 1967-68 are Central Association of Secondary Schools may shown by school classification in FigureIV.

SULLIVAN ENO% FIGURE II LEWIS X X ANDIvr LOCATION OF MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICTS X LIM SIACON OPERATING CLASSAAA AND UVINSSTON WIELST X CLASSAAHIGH SCHOOLS, JUNE 1968

AIIIIIIAIN Doom 111 Nitsfifir LAWNY% OCESON X P(TTIS wAnapi ramp's.

CITY Or ST. LOUIS IIINITEAUx

SATES CLASS AAA HIGH SCHOOL X CLASS AA HIGH SCHOOL

ST. CLAIN

VEM.04 NICKONT STE. X INOWVI

&ANTON

X NAME JASON LAvommog IIOLLINNEN

X CARTER TOKMall NEWTON ...____11 STONE F. X ISC SOMAL

28 ATCHISON NODANAT SCOTLAND

ALLPIAN ADAIR LEWIS FIGURE LE ANDREW LOCATION OF MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICTS MACON MARION OPERATING CLASS A AND UNCLASSIFIED HIGH SCHOOLS

CHARITON CAINOLL JUNE 1968

CLAY

SAME

MONT- GOMERY CAI.LAWAy

PETTIS

CITY OF MOM MU St LOUIS COLE FRANKUN ST. LOUIS WONSAN X JEFFERSON CLASS A HIGH SCHOOL MILLER HARMS XUNCLASSIFIED HIGH SCHOOL '10T.CLAIR JAMMU.

HICKORY STE. GENEvIEVE DALLik

i___ZIIIIINSTEWSt FRANCOIS MADISON REYNOLDS

wEISTER SHANNON WAYNE

X 9 CART It HOWELL . _

SARIV OA EGO N RIPLEY TANEY OZARK MADRID MC DONALD

IRMISCOT

29 FIGURE 10 UNITS OF CREDIT OFFEREDIN HIGH SCHOOLS BY CLASSIFICATIONOF SCHOOLS,I967-68

135 "AAti' DISTRICTS NUMBER 243 "A" DISTRICTS 87 "AA" DISTRICTS OF UNITS 10 100 8 OVER

95-99

90-94

85-89

I 80-84

I 75-79 1 , 18 70-74

16 65-69

15 60-64

17 22 55-59

22 10 50-54 17

25 45-49 33

40-44 58

35-39 64 1

30-34 54

25-29 10

LESS THAN 25 20 30 70 0 10 20 30 0 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 NUMBER OF DISTRICTS

30 Substantial differences in the number of units. More than two-thirds of the schools units appear in each classification. In the offered 45 to 59 units of credit. The AAA Class A schools, more than half of the schools show the greatest range. In ten districts offer fewer than 40 credits. The districts, 100 or more units were offered. largest number of districts (64) offer 35 Incontrast,three districtsoffered only to 39 units; the range is from less than 45 to 49 credits. The median number of 25 units to 60-64 units. The range in the approved unitsof credit offered by the Class AA schools is from 35-39 to 75-79 schools of the three classifications are:

MEDIAN CLASS OF NUMBER OF SCHOOL UNITS

A 39.4

AA 51.9

AAA 70.4

Thus, the scope of the programs in most districts fail to offer the recommended min- high schools is much too limited. The Cri- imum program. teria for School District Organization adopted The limited secondary school program by the Reorganization Commission recom- foundin most school districts is due to mends a minimum of 50 approved units. More the small enrollments.For example, in than half (258 of 474) of Missouri school 1966-67 the number of students enrolled in grades 9-12 by districts was as follows:

ENROLLMENT NUMBER OF GRADES 9-12 DISTRICTS

Less than 50 10

50 99 76

100 249 179

250 499 104

500 999 57

1,000 1,499 18

1,500 1,999 7

2,000 and Over 23

TOTAL 474

31 Thus, in 1966-67, a total of 265 districts en- Again, the evidence points to the multitude rolled fewer than 250 high school students. of districts which are too small toprovide In 86 of these districts the enrollment was a comprehensive educational program.Of less than 100 students. the 474 districts, 257 have less than50 graduates, which is only half of the minimum The "Criteria" approved by the School size recommended by Dr. Conant.Approxi- District Reorganization Commission recom- mately 150 Missouri school districtshave mend a minimum enrollment of 1,200 pupils graduating classes of 100 or more students. in kindergarten through grade 12 in order to implement an acceptable educational pro- Attention has been directed to thelarge gram on an economical andeffective basis. number of schooldistricts,their small If pupils are divided equally among all enrollments,and the limited educational grades, that standard would require a high programs and services.There are also severe school (grades 9 through 12) enrollment of organizational and instructionalproblems 370 students. Approximately two-thirds of the among the districtswith large enrollments. high 3chool districts of Missouri fail to meet The metropolitan centers atSt. Louis and that standard of size. Kansas City and their neighboringsuburban districtsalso faceeducational problems A common measure of adequate school resolve than district size is based on the number of high which may be more difficult to school graduates. Dr. James Conant, as a those in out-state areas. result of his work with secondary schools, has supported the standard of 100graduates St.. Louis and Kansas City reportedele- as the minimum number neededfor a commentary and secondary enrollmentsof 117,333 prehensive high school. Missouri school and 78,420 respectively in the1967-68 Mis- districtsfallfar short of that standard. souri School Directory. Theseenrollments The following tabulation shows the numberof included thousands of disadvantagedchildren high school graduates by districts in 1966-67: from low economic homes who need substantially more instruction and services.The problems of securing adultinterest and participation in such large school systems are most acute. The 26 school districts(including the reported NUMBER OF NUMBER OF Special District) of St. Louis County DISTRICTS a combined kindergarten totwelfth grade GRADUATES enrollment of 186,428 pupils in1967-68. Although populated largely by personsof from None or not higher economic level who have moved 3 the metropolitan center, they alsoface major reporting educational problems. Moving from thecity 8 to the suburbs has not causedthe basic 1 9 problems to disappear. To a somewhatlesser the 14 31 degree,the same situation exists in 10 Kansas City suburban area. 15 29 93 Thus, educational problemsexist through- 49 122 out the state. Although they maydiffer in 30 nature and scope from one areato another, 50 or More 217 they are serious everywhere.Their solution will require the cooperativeeffort of all TOTAL 474 citizens.

32 POPULATION CHANGES WITHINTHE inhabitants and in their locationwithin the STATE AFFECT SCHOOL DISTRICT state.The first enumeration (1830)after ORGANIZATION becoming a state showeda population of 140,455. The population growthby decades Missourihasexperienced substantial is shown in Table 8. population changes, both in thenumber cf

TABLE 8

POPULATION OF MISSOURI BY DECADES, 1830-1960 Increase Over Previous Census Per Year Population Number Cent

1830 140,455 =11,M.I 1840 383,702 243,247 173.2 1850 682,044 298,342 77.8 1860 1,182,012 499,968 73.3 1870 1,721,295 , 539,283 45.6 1880 2,168,380 447,085 26.0 1890 2,679,183 510,805 23.6 1900 3,106,665 427,480 16.0 1910 3,293,335 180,670 6.0 1920 3,404,055 110,720 3.4

1930 3,629,367 225,312 6.6 1940 3,784,664 155,297 4.3 1950 3,954,653 169,989 4.5 1960 4,319,813 365,160 9.2 SOURCE:State of Missouri, OFFICIAL MANUAL FORTHE YEARS 1967-68, p. 1,253.

The state has experienceda substantial The shift in population from ruralto growth in every decade. Since 1830,in only urban areas in recent years isas significant four decades has the increase fallenbelow as the growth record and is of special im- 200,000 persons. For each of fivesuccessive portance toschooldistrict organization. decades the growth exceeded 400,000. Table 9 presents the rural and urbanpopula- tions by decades since 1830. TABLE 9

THE RURAL AND URBAN POPULATION OF MISSOURI,1830-1960 Number Per Cent of of Urban Population Total. Year Places Rural Urban Rural Urban

18 30 1 135,478 4,977 96.5 3.5 18 40 1 367,233 16,469 95.7 4.:3 18 50 2 601,486 80,558 88.2 11.8 1860 11 978,525 203,487 82.8 17.2 13 70 19 1,291,717 429,578 75.0 25.0

1880 26 1,622,38 7 545,993 74.8 25.2 1890 44 1,822,219 856,966 68.0 32.0 1900 50 1,978,561 1,128,104 63.7 36.3 1910 61 1,899,630 1,393,705 57.7 42.3 1920 63 11817,152 1,586,903 53.4 46.6

1930 72 1,770,248 1,859,119 48.8 51.2 1940 8 7 1,823,968 1,960,696 48.2 51.8 1950* 108 1,521,938 2,432,715 38.5 61.5 1960* 145 1,443,256 2,876,557 33.4 66.6

SOURCE: State of Missouri, OFFICIAL MANUAL FOR THE YEARS 1967-68, p. 1,253. *Based on the current Census Bureau's definition of urban population.

During early statehood, Missouri was pre- cates that the patterns of total growth and dominantly rural. By 1890 almost one-third urbanization will continue. The projections of the population was classified as urban. present these results:3 The shift from rural to urban has been continuous, so that by 1960 two-thirds of the total population was urban. The number of 3. James R. Pinkerton, Rex R. Campbell, urban places has also increased each decade, FloydK.Harmston,PROJECTIONS OF jumping from one to 145 since 1840. SOCIOECONOMIC DATA TO 1967, 1975, 1990, A recent report prepared by the Research Research Center, School of Business and Center, School of Business and Public Ad- Public Administration, University of Mis- ministration, University of Missouri indi- souri, Columbia, 1968, pp. 96-98.

34 Per Cent of Population Total Year State Rural Urban Rural Urban

1967 4,588, 768 1,293,425 3,295,343 28.2 71.8

1975 5,146,287 1, 171,989 3,974,298 22.8 77.2

1990 6,186,879 1,005, 773 5,181,106 16.3 83. 7

The 1967 population represents a growth While the general impact of the growth of more than 260,000 since 1960. The pro- andshiftof populationis quite evident, jections show an anticipated growth of over their significance becomes more apparent 550,000 from 1967 to 1975, and more than as changes within the state are examined. 1,000,000 from 1975 to 1990. The rural pop- Table 10 presents the populations by counties ulation is expected to continue declining, so from 1920 to 1960 and indicates the years that by 1990 only 16.3 per cent of the popula- of highest and lowest population for each tion will be rural. county.

TABLE 10

POPULATION OF COUNTIES, 1920-1960 Population by Years County 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Adair 21, 404* 19, 436** 20,246 19,689 20, 105 Andrew 14,075* 13,469 13,016 11, 727 11,062** Atchison 13,008 13, 421* 12,897 11, 127 9,213** Audrain 20, 589** 22,077 22,673 23,829 26,079* Barry . 23, 473 22,803 23,546* 21, 755 18,921**

Barton 16,879* 14, 560 14,148 12,678 11, 113** Bates 23,933* 22,068 19, 531 17, 534 15,905** Benton 12,989* 11, 708 11,142 9,080 8, 737** Bollinger 13,909* 12,269 12,898 11,019 9, 167** Boone 29,672** 30,995 34,991 48,432 55,202*

Buchanan 93,684 98,633* 94,067 96,826 90, 581** Butler 24, 108 23,697** 34,276 37, 707* 34,656 Caldwell 13,849* 12, 509 11,629 9,209 8 1830** Callaway 23,007 19, 923** 23,094 23,316 23,858* Camden 10, 474* 9, 142 8,971 7,861** 9,116

35 TABLE 10 (Continued) Population by Years County 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 Cape Girardeau 29,839** 33,203 37, 775 38,397 42,020* Carroll 20, 480* 19,940 17,814 15,589 13,847** Carter 7,482* 5,503 6,226 4, 777 3,973** Cass 21,536 20 962 19, 534 19,325** 29, 702* Cedar 13,933* 11,136 11,697 10,663 9,185** Chariton 21, 769* 19, 588 18,084 14,944 12, 720** Christian 15, 252* 13, 169 13,538 12,412 121359** Clark 11,874* 10,254 10,166 9,003 8,725** Clay 20,455** 26,811 30,417 45,221 87,474* Clinton 14,461* 13, 505 13,261 11, 726 11, 588**

Cole 24, 680** 30,848 34,912 35,464 40, 761* Cooper 19, 308 19, 522* 18,075 16,608 15,448** Crawford 12,355 11,287** 12,693* 11,615 12,647 Dade 14,173* 11, 764 11,248 9,324 7, 577** D alias 12,033* 10,541 11, 523 10, 392 9,314**

D aviess 16,641* 14,424 13,398 11,180 9, 502** D eKalb 11,694* 10,270 9, 751 8,047 7,226** D ent 12, 318* 10,974 11, 763 10,936 10,445** D ougl as 15, 436 13,959 15,600* 12,638 9,653** Dunklin 32, 773** 35, 799 44,957 45,329* 39,139

Franklin 28,427*** 30, 519 33,868 36,046 44,566* Gasconade 12,381 12, 172** 12, 414 12,342 12,195 Gentry 15,634* 14, 348 13, 359 11,036 8,793** Greene 68,698** 82, 929 90, 541 104,823 126,276* Grundy 17, 554* 16,135 15, 716 13,220 12,220** Harrison 19, 719: 17,233 16, 525 14,107 11,603** Henry 25, 116* 22,931 22, 313 20,043 19,226** Hickory 7,033 6, 430 6,506 5, 387 4,516** Holt 14,084: 12, 720 12, 476 9,833 7,885** Howard 13,997 13, 490 13,026 11,857 10,859**

Howell 21,102 19,672** 22,270 22,725* 22,027 Iron 9, 458 9,642 10,440* 9, 458 8 1041** Jackson 367,846** 470,454 477,828 541,035 622, 732* J asper 75,941** 73,810** 78,705 79,106* 78,863 Jefferson 26, 555 27,563 32,023 38,007 66,377* Johnson 2.1,899 22,413 21,617 20, 716** 28 1981* Knox 10, 783* 9,658 8,8 78 7,617 6 1558** L aclede 16,857 16, 320** 18, 718 19,010* 18 1991 L afayette 30,006* 29,259 27,856 25,272** 25,274 L awrence 24,211 23, 774 24,637* 23,420 23, 260**

36 TABLE 10 (Continued)

Population by Years County 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 Lewis 13,465* 12,093 11,490 10, 733** 10,984 Lincoln 15,956* 13,929 14,395 13,478** 14,783 Linn 24,778* 23,339 21,416 18,865 16,815** Livingston 18,857* 18,615 18,000 16,532 15,771** McDonald 14,690 13,936 15,749* 14,144 11,798**

Macon 27,518* 23,070 21,396 18,332 16,473** Madison 10,721* 9,418 9,656 10,380 9,366** Maries 9,500* 8,368 8,638 7,423 7,282** Marion 30,226 33,493* 31,576 29,765 29,552** Mercer 11,281* 9,350 8,766 7,235 5, 750**

Miller 15,567 16,728* 14,798 13, 734** 13,800 Mississippi 12,860** 15,762 23,149* 22,551 20,695 Moniteau 13,532* 12,173 11,775 10,840 10,500** Monroe 16,414* 13,466 13,195 11,314 10,688** Montgomery 15,233* 13,011 12,442 11,555 11,097**

Morgan 12,015* 10,968 11,140 10,207 9,476** New Madrid 25,180** 30,262 39,787* 39,444 31,350 Newton 24,886** 26,959 29,039 28,240 30,093 Nodaway 27,741* 26,371 25,556 24,033 22,215** Oregon 12,889 12,220 13,390* 11,978 9,845**

Osage 13,559* 12,462 12,375 11,301 10,867** Ozark 11,125* 9,537 10,766 8,856 6,744** Pemiscot 26,634** 37,284 46,857* 45,624 38,095 Perry 14,434 13, 707** 15,358* 14,890 14,642 Pettis 35,813* 34,664 33,336 31,577** 35,120 Phelps 14,941** 15,308 17,437 21,504 25,396* Pike 20,345* 18,001 18,327 16,844 16,706** Platte 13,996 13,819** 13,862 14,973 23,350* Polk 20,351* 17,803 17,400 16,062 13, 753** Pulaski 10,490 10,755 10,775 10,392** 46,567* Putnam 13,115* 11,503 11,327 Ralls 9,166 6,999** 10,412 10,704* 10,040 8,686 8,078** Randolph 27,633* 26,431 24,458 22,918 22,014** Ray 20,508* 19,846 18,584 15,932** 16,075 Reynolds 10, 106* 8,923 9,370 6,918 5,161** Ripley 12,061 11,176 12,606* 11,414 9,096** St. Charles 22,828** 24,354 25,562 29,834 52,970* St. Clair 15,341* 13,289 13,146 10,482 8,421** St. Francois 31,403** 35,832 35,950* 35,276 36,516 Ste.Genevieve 9,809** 10,097 10,905 11,237 12,116*

37 TABLE 10 (Continued) Population by Years County 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

St. Louis 100, 737** 211, 593 2 74,230 406, 349 703, 532* Saline 28,826 30, 598* 29,416 26,694 25, 148** Schuyler 8, 383* 6 2951 6 962 7 5, 760 5, 052** Scotland 10, 700* 818 53 8, 557 7,332 6, 484** Scott 23, 409** 24, 913 30 9377 32,842* 32, 748

Shannon 11,865* 10,894 11,8 31 8,377 7,087** Shelby 13,617* 11,98 5 11,224 9, 730 9, 06 3** Stoddard 29, 755 2 7, 452** 33,009 33,463* 29, 490 Stone 11, 941** 11,614 11,298 9, 748 8,176** Sullivan 17, 781 15,212 13, 701 11,299 8,783** Taney 8,178** 8,86 7 10,323* 9,863 10,238 Texas 20, 548* 18, 580 19,8 13 18,992 17, 758** Vernon 26,069* 25,031 25, 586 22,68 5 20, 540** Warren 8, 490 8,082 7, 734 7,666** 8,750* Washington 13,803** 14, 450 17,492* 14,689 14, 346

Wayne 13,012* 12,243 12, 794 10, 514 8,638** Webster 16,609 16, 148 17,226* 15,0 72 13, 753** Worth 7,642* 6, 535 6,345 5, 120 3,936** Wright 17, 733 16,741 17,96 7 15,834 14, 18 3** CitySt. Louis 772,89 7 821,960 816 9048 856, 796* 750,026** Number of Counties Recording Their Peak Population 6 3 7 17 8 20 Number of Counties Recording Their Smallest Population 22 11 o 11 71

SOURCE: Compiled from United States Census Reports. *Peak population during the 1920 to 1960 period. **Smallest population during the 1920 to 1960 period.

38 The counties show widely divergentpat- the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County,and terns of population change during theperiod Jackson County. The concentration ofgrowth from 1920 to 1960. In 1920a total of 63 is even more striking. Six counties(Clay, counties recorded their peak populationand 22 Greene, Jackson, Jefferson, St. Charles,and counties showed their lowest populationfor St. Louis) gained 1,052,000 inhabitantsfrom the entire period. In contrast,the lowest 1920 to 1960. Since the total growth forthe population was reached in 1960 by 71counties, entire state was only 915,000, itmeans that despite the fact that the populationof the the rest of the state experienceda net loss state increased by 915,000persons during the of over 100,000persons during that period. 1920 to 1960 period. At thesame time that Eighty of the 114 counties each had fewer the 71 counties reached their lowpoint, 20 inhabitants in 1960 than in 1920. counties established their peak enrollment. Although no federal census has been taken A total of 55 counties suffereda population since 1960, current estimates and projec- loss during each decade from 1920to 1960; tions provide data relating to recentand on the other hand, nine counties gainedpopu- anticipated population changes.Figure V lation during each decade during thesame presents the 1960 population and the 1967 period. estimated population for each county. The The concentration of population is illus- estimated populations have been taken from trated by the fact that in 1960more than the publication, PROJECTIONS OF SOCIO- 40 per cent of people in the statelived in ECONOMIC DATA TO 1967, 1975, 1990.

4i474104 SCOTLANO cLAss 400Ern NASINION NESCO: ruTNAN sovntst 9,213 6,999 5,0526,484 9725 22,215 5,750 5,575 7,567 11,603 4,438:1,696 8,004 19,816 SWAY 4,741 so..Lorm: 9,739 £051! 8,793 KNOX motor 8,783 20,105 LEWIS FIGURE IL 7,259 6,558 7,885 12,220 8,472 22,003 10,984 6,632 ANDAEW ormess 5,615 11,062 11,093 10,669 POPULATION BY COUNTIES, MEALS 9,502 NACOS 10,243 LINN 7,226 8,102 ussmosrom 16,815 16,473 uss EAMON 1960 ACTUAL AND 1967 PROJECTED 6,424 15,771 14,824 15,339 9,063 29,522 csusems. 7,647 30,064 90,581sumo 14,315 8,830 93,32511,588 comAirom CALLS 7,832 ECINNOE DUCHADAA CARROLL AmtooLow 8,078 II 008 12,720 :0,688 PLATTE Ass 13,847 22,014 7,20 PIKE 10,947 9,912 23,350CLAY 16,075 12,200 20,148 16,706 UPPER NUMBER - 1960 POPULATION 30,76987,474 15,364 18,325 AVOMMAI 121,855 SALNIt *WARD LOWER NUMBER - 1967 PROJECTION soon 26,079 25,148 10,859 26,079 MOUT- mwramrs Lumarn 22,022 10,659 55,202 saws 25,274 cAmmurir 19,957 622,732 28,812 67,876 11,097 645,507 PETTIS 23,858 10,131 MENNE 15,448 4444 23,283 fowls sr. C"Mls 28,961 35,120 14,039 8750 52.979 29,702 37,361 38,402 8,750 92,36 CITYor mogotrAsu SASCO- 703,532 st LOUIS 3,215 10,500COLE MAW NAPE 903,_690 PNAIKUN ST.LoWS 750,026 wow NONSIAN 9,72940,761 moor 46,467 10,867 12.195 699,053 saris 19,226 9,476 44,566 orrrotion 9,848 11.373 17,988 8,737 59,235 15,905 8,707 MILLEN 66,377 nom 14,495 8,256 13,800 112,841 7,262 St CLAN1 CASKS cawromf 12,924 6,670 8,421 9 116 12,647 14,346 MEM MCITONT PHELPS STE. 7,064 9 778 PULANO 13,026 4,516 25,396 12,895 AINEVIEVE 20,540 12,116 CESA4 3,940DALLAS 46,567 26,766 36,51 11,239 PONY 20,919 WASMOSTON 9,185 POLK LsrAsse 46,567 DENT 39,072 14,642 9,314 mon 8,041SIPAUNKES 8,093 13,753 18,991 10,445 13,075 8,364 10000 EACNIPON memo* 17,405 ca., 11,113 SAN 12,000 TEXAS 9,651 NEYNOLOI 9,366 muumuu 7,577 9,16742,020 9,587 MITES 5,161 10,673 6,342 min 17,758 SHANNON 7,800 JAME 13,753 14,183 44,983 126,276 5,883 WAYNE LAWNENCIE 16,145 78,863 11,102 11 ,57 3 7,087 146,571 8,638 IOLLIMSES Scary 72,869 23,260 6,522 7,485 32,748 22,064 cwirnAm CASTER 141,708 DOUKAS HOWELL STOOOANO 34,459 3,973 NISSTAIS- 30,093 sums 12,359 9,653 11,594 3,415 ovum 29,490 20,695 29,293 7,711 22,027 ortesou 24,668 MEW 17,481 8,176 TANEY (MAK RIPLEY 34,656 NC *OPALS 20,136 9,845 NATIAID 10,238 6,744 9,096 30,630 11,798 6733 8,362 9,986 12,029 5,431 7,599 31,350 23,988

39,139 PEINSCOT 32,323 38,0 30,806 MMUS 39 It has already been pointed out that the Although the 1975 population of the state 1967estimated population of Missouri is is estimated at 750,000 more than in 1967, 260,000 more than in 1960. However, for it is anticipated that 79 counties will ex- 81 counties the 1967 estimated population is perience a population decline. Each of these less than it was in 1960. As in the previous 79 counties also suffered a loss in the 1960 decade, the most recent population growth to 1967 period. The same six counties which was concentrated in a relatively few coun- grew by 350,000 persons from 1960 to 1967 ties. For example, the combined growth for have a projected growth of an additional six counties was estimated at 350,000, which 714,000 by 1975. Three counties (Clay, Jef- means that the rest of the state lost approxi- ferson, and St. Louis) are expected to in- mately 90,000 in population. In fact, one crease by 600,000 from 1967 to 1975. county (St.Louis) accounted for a gain of These statewide and county population 200,000 leaving a net gain of approximately changes are of tremendous importance to 60,000 for the rest of the state. school district organization. Schools were Figure VI shows the 1967 estimated and first established to serve a rural population the 1975 projected populations by counties. and a rural economy With the great growth Both sets of populations have been taken in population and the shift from a heavily from the publication, PROJECTIONS OF rural to a strong urban population, changes SOCIOECONOMIC DATA TO 1967,1975, in educational programs and district organ- 1990. The net change in any county can be ization became inevitable. Many such changes readily determined by inspection. have occurred and many others will be needed.

cLARK Atchison NOCIAWAY %Mule> wosm hairiusen WINCES Inman sehinLyi 3,381 5,575 4,438 5,696 7,567 19,816 4,741 8,004 2,930 4,416 6,119 9,739 3,889 5,013 7,404 17,890 SENTRY 3,855 MAAMAN ADAIR 8,125 KNOX HMS 7,259 RUNDY 8,472 22,003 LEWIS FIGURE EI 5,632 5,615 5,914 11,093 7,145 24,469 10,669 5,500 Amnegir 4,834 POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY COUNTIES, 10,243 10,141 10,609 MALI 8,102 LINN MACON 9,631 6,424 6,864 1"1""T°4 14,824 15,339 SHILEY NIARMW 1967 AND 1975 14,315 7,647 5,735 13,102 15,622 30,064 emositu. 6,467 30,684 eusrmn :3,209 93,325 7,832 100,845 11,008 CHARMON MILLS 7,002 mount INOCHANAN 10,617 CARROLL 10,947 RANDOLPH 7,209 PLAttE 9,912 PIKE RAY 12,200 9,477 20,148 6,449 30,769CLAY 9,398 15,364 UPPER NUMBER - 1967 PROJECTION 18,325 10,743 18,559 49,753121,855 14,278 26,523 AUDRAIN LOWER NUMBER - 1975 PROJECTION 200,000 SALINE GOOK 26,079 uncoLn 22,022 26,079 LAFAYETTE WONT- 19,957 JACKSON 19,292 67,876 SONERY 28,812 33,261 645,507 CALLAWAY 10,131 41,701 80,809 672,619 Pettis 9,372 JOHNSON 23,283 14,039 STCWARLES east 23,418 WARREN 37,361 38,402 13,036 8,75082,368 43,215 9,625129,812 CITY OF 56,3W 42,640 IIONMEAU SAISCD. St LOUIS 68,609 COLE OSAIHE NADI 9,729 FRANKLIN 699,053 num SIMIAN ,15346,467 9,848 StlITON 53,804 11,373 59,235 661,855 SATES 17,988 8,707 9,1 16 10,723 88,000 14,495 17,160 8,256 8,179 NILLEN mamas 13,560 8,017 12,924 !$T CLAIR 6,670 IFwilmwon, CAMDEN 12,358 6,220 7,064 9,778 12,895 13,026 mesons' r- PHELPS 5,911 PULASKI 14,273 12,120 3,940 10,961 26,766 20,919 3,475 46 567 CEDAR DALLAS 31,076 39,07 22,077 WASHINGTON 8,093 Posx LAcuog 46,567 leent 42,176 Imm10,000 $T FRAWCOIS 7,180 8,364 17,405 12,000 9,651 12 000 MADISON 'mutton 7,587 16,189 CAPE TEXAS 10,124 afTNOL011 10,673 IIIIRAFWEAU 9,587 DADE 10,551 6,342 12,356 7,80044,983 8,29 7 IWESTER WSIOIT 5,883 16,145 WIANNON 5,287 INE 11,573 6,67348,525 JANKE 11,102 6,936 1AYNE 146,571 14,867 72,86 9 LAWRENCE 8,857 6,522 171,998 9,398 7,4 85 SOLLIINSEll 68,024 22,064 6,1 11 6,56 8 21,2i8 CNN IMIAN iCARTER lento* DOUGLAS HOWELL 11,594 3,415 STONE 7,711 29,293 2,971 SUTLER BARRY 10,979 6,128 29,415 20,136 ONESON RIPLEY 30,630 NEW 16,182 16,733 1""" OZARK MADRID NC DONALD 18,652 8,362 5,4 31 7,599 27,454 13,84 4 5,531 12,029 9,986 7,126 6.370 23,988 8,461 14,396 4,36 I 18,271

32,323 PEWS= 26,665 30,80 40 24,919 DUNKUN BIRTH TRENDS HAVE MAJOR IMPACT TABLE 11 UPON THE NEED FOR SCHOOLS RESIDENT LIVE BIRTHS IN The wide differences in population changes UNITED STATES AND MISSOURI, among the counties is not the only factor 1940-1967 which needs to be considered in determining the most effective plan of school district organization. Closely related to the population trends are the fluctuation in the number of Number of Births births from year to year and the variation Year United States Missouri from county to county. Table 11 presents the birth data for the 1940 2,360,399 61,479 United States and Missouri by years since 1941 2,513,427 65,218 1940. The general patterns of change in the 1942 2,808,996 70,711 number of births are similar for the state 1943 2,934,860 72,458 and the nation. Both show substantial in- 1944 2,794,800 creases beginning in 1946 and culminating 67,990 with record numbers during the 1956 to 1961 1945 2,735,456 65,659 period. Births in Missouri reacheda peak 1946 3,288,672 80,684 in 1959 as contrasted to 1961 for the United 1947 3,699,940 90,060 States. Both the state and the nation have 1948 3,535,068 85,258 experienced declines each year after estab- 1949 3,559,529 85,302 lishing their record highs. Although thesame broad changes in the number of birthsare 1950 3,554,147 85,704 apparent, there are significant differences 1951 3,750,850 89,977 between the state and the nation. For example, 1952 3,846,986 90,118 from 1940 to the peakyear, births in the 1953 3,902,120 91,447 United States increased by 81 per centas 1954 4,107,362 93,453 constrasted to 60 per cent for Missouri. The decline in births from the peakyear to 1967 1955 4,047,295 93,797 has been more severe in the state (24per 1956 4,163,090 96,099 cent) than in the nation (17 per cent). There 1957 4,254,008 97,161 is a significant difference in the level of 1958 4,204,759 96,721 births in 1967 as contrasted to 1940. Despite 1959 4,244,796 98,537 the general decline in the number of births during recent years, the 1967 births for the 1960 4,257,850 97,723 nation are practically 50 per cent higher than 1961 4,282,081 97,321 in 1940 while for Missouri the increase is 1962 4,167,281 93,879 only 21 per cent. These comparisons lead 1963 4,098,020 90,363 to the conclusion that Missouri has not kept 1964 4,027,490 pace with the nation in maintaining birth 88,335 2evels. 1965 3,760,358 81,216 Recent available data point to thecon- 1966 3,606,274 77,946 clusion that the period of declining births 1967 3,533,000* 74,501 may be nearing an end. The birth trend in Missouri has reflected the pattern of national births, For the United States, the number of SOURCE: annual births jumped from 2,735,000 in 1945 United States Bureau of Vital Statistics to 3,288,000 and 3,700,000 respectively in the and Missouri Division of Health, Bureau next two years. A peak of 4,282,081 births of Statistical Services. was reached in 1961. Declining births during each of the next six years dropped the *Provisional figure.

41 number to 3,533,000 in 1967. However, the by 1975, and top 6,000,000 by1980. Missouri children born during the "Baby boom" which will no doubt experience proportionately in- began in 1946 are now approaching the mar- creased births along with the projected popu- riage age. The number of females in the lation explosion in the nation. population in the prime years of fertility The differences in birth trends among (20 to 29) remained fairly constant during the thecounties are more striking than the 1950's. That number will be 39 per cent more fluctuation in annual births for the state as by 1970 and 63 per cent more by 1975 a whole. Table 12presents the birth data than it was in 1960. If current conditions' by countiesatfive-year intervals from continue, iis estimated that annual births 1940 to 1960 and for each of the last eight may reach 4,724,000 by 1970, exceed 5,400,000 years.

42 RESIDENT LIVE BIRTHS IN MISSOURI BY COUNTIES FOR SELECTED TABLE 12 YEARS, 1940-1967 Adair County 1940 321 1945 327 1950 430 1955 404 Number1960 of439 1961 444 1962 450Births 1963 432 1964 423 1965 1966 1967 AudrainBarryAtchisonAndrew 384420211166 385389192137 415421220175 306582192190 352573128194 367567174189 346527133174 292562146166 289520151191 469111334163 428117161307 389142155333 BentonBatesBarton 290213177 237132184 149323210 284123188 259118157 135252164 281122174 255124164 222154 239274119 201246 99 231240111 co*1=- BooneBollinger 609193 537154 948182 1,021 186 1,411 134 1,387 177 1,428 147 1,484 136 1,469 151142 1,308 127103 1,294 112112 1,285 101102 CaldwellButlerBuchanan 1,337 158793 1,475 161779 1,865 939157 1,858 161750 1,972 672136 1,974 132768 2,002 694136 1,923 656 98 1,777 636109 1,725 526119 1,560 105492 1,431 471 79 CapeCamdenCallaway Girardeau 638180335 286734138 840411144 883140395 843393124 853150437 858135426 872427132 789399142 712375124 663115345 663123355 CedarCassCarterCarroll 259174144317 140293229 96 347179113299 150231524 72 660163250 78 220158583 86 161205540 73 641139203 57 147629200 62 127703179 56 650112188 67 126569163 51 ClarkChristianChariton 245328167 141299196 184237254 172201217 235227166 179222189 210162194. 222172165 208159180 127180140 202146142 108181132 ColeClintonClay 507199429 488641150 1,051 212720 1,760 810229 2,206 847200 2,225 900215 2,188 867185 2,075 824160 2,057 798183 2,051 791160 2,081 779144 1,932 694158 DallasDadeCrawfordCooper 211183139291 153238154 99 254180153318 224301128115 122114248309 254279124111 141233284 96 270271122 93 104247257 99 100242243 73 228208 9068 246109195 57 TABLE 12 (Continued) County 1940 1945 1950 1955 Number1960 of 1961 1962 Births 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 DeKalbDaviessDent 221140162 124153178 206140162 217139134 179120110 224110139 150187108 116155 78 168124 80 150114 89 153117 83 149 8892 FranklinDunklinDouglas 920598321 598968228 1,103 820244 993931168 1,103 882174 1,143 940153 1,085 799160 1,064 823146 1,130 774131 1,051 624124 1,070 571111 948539115 GrundyGentryGasconadeGreene 1,481 267175171 1,743 217146184 2,329 254206226 2,283 232179142 2,685 205212138 2,695 212195156 2,567 214204148 2,533 179115183 2,504 180133173 2,383 156171117 2,338 129113156 2,222 123116147 HickoryHarrisonHenry 297412 99 298207 71 234339168 94 231317 74 339129193 69 325195 51 126336187 52 345144 9349 306152 34 296104118 50 269129 38 243126 3175 4.4. HowellHowardHolt 203458190 380184155 201549 411207155 206441 435206115 230443 401183 369170 94 340165 312133 83 303127 JeffersonJasperJacksonIron 1,4187,103 231557 8,6681,589 499180 12,323 1,675 881139 15,004 1,6141,230 176 16,006 1,5941,698 159 15,720 1,7371,613 159 15,143 1,7381,538 149 14,361 1,8501,442 142 13,877 1,8441,474 151 13,000 1,7101,261 125 12,292 1,2561,682 149 11,531 1,8171,267 134 LacledeKnoxJohnson 298503354124 436353317 87 474403133341 499507396135 458381135500 477395549113 459380101515 423425467 98 491393344116 288381358 77 234338375 82 322373361 80 LafayetteLewisLawrence 258366174 212160350 205428 270359189 279223382 222395318 309226401 202418310 282415180 267159347 326331166 262309145 McDonaldLivingstonLinnLincoln 295268322 2562E18333 268300310230 290308185 215272282 245300197 282241194 291223201 277195174 273169192 229157167 251158171 TABLE 12 (Continued) County 1940 1945 1950 1955 Number 1960of 1961 1962 Births 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 MariesMadisonMacon 203298149 217242119 222305161 250132229 276149171 268116194 249128163 242136 204111149 113175 85 113199 92 139188 98 MillerMercerMarion 293484125 187510 94 285121598 258103635 299602 68 307647 90 282585 64 274546 70 258550 51 222500 57 227414 47 207388 35 MontgomeryMonroeMoniteauMissicsippi 228223583191 156579148173 220677186195 221222206605 228215546190 220209186561 209180186527 207203503170 199137184535 419170126162 397176133147 375148116154 NewMorganNewton Madrid 936548178 631894154 1,063 540148 582968159 602892144 806583167 612769141 511668146 684515123 503536110 487495119 425448104 NodawayOsageOregon 220255385 215349198 248209538 237463145 256156401 226404152 238407135 232401150 223400140 197111374 190106332 198327112 PettisPerryPemiscotOzark 1,047 269497314 530284981160 1,190 598378185 1,070 729346133 1,045 325756116 1,004 793317109 1,014 725375 81 662306887 91 613298901 85 269500721 91 614509257 76 465229542 73 PolkPlattePikePhelps 263271224340 214260366188 259294317453 202446350537 204600538384 379604188585 618188550332 331197523546 325162514518 277451158506 484312429 496262411 PutnamPulaski 223229 275154 255159 140331 498115 117542 500113 441114 480 94 331 83 332153 70 268171 79. ReynoldsRayRandolphRalls 268303192132 216128326123 230431142147 259413151 99 275407 8598 354435147 91 306387158 74 276384145 92 255356115 67 225301118 69 215329106 71 226318 8495 TABLE 12 (Continued) County 1940 259 1945 200 1950 239 1955 178 Number 1960of 168 1961 158 1962 149Births 1963 140 1964 143 1965 113 1966 116 1967 100 Ste.St.Ripley ClairCharles FrancoisGenevieve 693215206388 602491213139 820287751159 1,006 282131793 1,760 313707117 1,770 300728115 1,774 272688127 1,859 262631108 1,840 269654118 1,669 204549 95 1,757 217548 90 1,772 186553 62 SalineSt.Schuyler Louis 4,261 439110 5,942 393 87 9,541 462101 14,016 401 87 16,403 447 78 16,421 445 97 16,141 452 83 15,879 416 74 16,044 405 74 15,159 349 58 14,914 332 55 14,587 369 59 ScottScotlandShannon 264631140 682155 91 853118163 824134107 829144118 839152105 155794 99 806173 82 804144 99 679114 74 628117 90 114584 72 ShelbyStoneStoddard 258200171731 194181753149 197198731176 671143157161 632131151155 630114183146 641126169156 524133119172 141506136 91 416146114 90 369119122 381128115 79 cr)4, SullivanTaney 210 137 182 196 181 176 183 185 159 127 141 97 121 WashingtonWarrenVernonl'xas 409343306 82 277325341 88 332370126362 364252342151 280352351151 398337163315 342185285346 318293349160 323250316167 242258292152 202227311123 215249270141 WayneWorthWebster 293107330277 285291177 91 316302199 97 271251142 71 284293140 56 276254158 67 279263147 58 265210150 50 223265183 62 253174128 39 212190139 43 112197195 31 WrightCity -- St. Louis SOURCE: Missouri State11,827 Division of Health, Bureau of Statistical Services. 15,247 19,993 21,273 19,342 18,539 17,325 16,670 15,994 15,103 14,053 13,071 Each county shows its own unique birth are experiencing these diverse birth trends. pattern. While there are similarities among Figure VII has been prepared to aid in locating certaincounties,notwo areidentical. the major change areas. The number of Althoush the peak birth year varies from births which occurred in 1951, 1959, and 1967 county to county, all counties have receded are recorded for each county. In interpreting in the last few years from their record high. the record for any county it is useful to Although the state births in 1967 were 21 ctrast it with the state births for those per cent higher than in 1940, 92 counties years: 1951 89,977, 1959 98,537, and recorded fewer births in 1967 than in 1940. 1967 74,501. Some z,ounties experienced drastic changes. In general, the counties including or being Among thecountiessuffering substantial adjacent to a major city have held the number declines in 1967 from their peak year are: of births at a relatively stable level. It is rather surprising to note that the 1967 births Carter 144 to51 in the city of St. Louis were 7,000 less than Chariton 328 to 132 in either 1959 or 1951. Dade 153 to57 Many of the rural counties have exper- Douglas 321 to 115 ienced drastic reductions in the number of Harrison 297 to 126 births. The gToup of counties in the northern Hickory 99 to31 area of the state shows such drastic reduc- Holt 203 to75 tions in births during the last 16 years as Mercer 125 to35 follows: Ozark 269 to73 Putnam 223 to79 Daviess 182 131 92 Reynolds 192 to84 Gentry 207 138 116 St. Clair 215 to62 Grundy 261 180123 Shannon 264 to 114 Harrison 274217 126 Sullivan 258 to79 Mercer 125 93 35 Wayne 277 to 112 Putnam 175 108 79 Worth 107 to31 Schuyler 9.3 97 59 Sullivan 202146 79 In contrast, some counties had substantially Worth 99 60 31 more births in 1967 than in 1940, although 1967 was not their peak year. Among the counties making the greatest gains from 1940 These nine counties show a total of 1,618 to 1967 are: births in 1951, a drop to 1,170 births eight years later, and a further decline to 740 in Boone 609 to 1,285 1967. Similar reductions in the number of Cass 259 to 569 births are apparent among the rural counties Clay 429 to1,932 in other sections of the state. Franklin 598 to 948 The contrasting trends in births within Greene 1,481 to2,222 the state have definite implications for future Jackson 7,103 to 11,531 school district organization. Many existing Jefferson 557 to1,817 school districts are facing severe enrollment Platte 224 to 496 reductions in the future. As a result, it will St. Charles 388 to1,772 be necessary to increase the area of school St. Louis 4,261 to 14,587 districts substantially in order to have enrollments large enough to offer comprehensive It is unnecessary to describe the changes in educational programs. Although it is expected each county as an inspection of Table 12 will that Missouri will share in the anticipated yield a ready comparison. bulge in births during the coming years, most The listing of bi7:ths by counties does not of the increase will be concentrated in the readily reveal the areas of the state which urban areas of the state.

1-- Thus, future school district organization Thus, the educational problems which are must be geared to declining populations and already serious due to these diverse condi- fewer births in the rural areas and heavy tionswill no doubt be aggravated in the concentrations of both in the urban sections. future.

mug axons* HOONWIT 175 NowlinSCOTLAND WORTH99NAJIMSON EMU PUTNAM 93 H4 172 213 108 60 125 97 111 171 569 274 79 171 93 59 72 142 454 setertr 217 35 KILLWAN 108 ADAIR 327 207 202 EEO% HOLT :26 MADE 436 LEWIS FIGURE ET 16 138 146 143 261 482 151 112 116 79 145 ANDIEW Damn 180 333 232 NUMBER OF BIRTHS BY COUNTIES 75 186 182 /23 80 145 mute LION MACON 179 131 149 MAMMON swum MARION FOR SELECTED YEARS,I951,1959,1967 155 92 312 308 99 343 277 170 582 272 703 1886 88 300 171 188 168 CALDWELL 115 388 1961 wow 160 251 CHARITON 1431 239 147 WOMEN sucusulam 206 79 CAROMS. 255 114/1001.141 197 Pile PLATTE 158 279 194 457 199 SAY 380 335 CLAY 279 242 132 425 116 UPPER NUMBER 1951 BIRTHS 546 /239 301 163 318 416 262 1959 BIRTHS 496 2058 226 SALINE Aulnu" 600 MIOOLE NUM8ER some 572 LINcoul 481 LOWER NUMBER 1967 BIRTHS 546 309 HOIST 279 LAFAYETTE 416 946 FACICSCN 448 369 SOMME 327 13,448 1404 CHI-WM 20711262 15,942 361 1285 232 Penis 400 11,531 aomeour 302 148 496 5454w1 149st commis CASS 296 833 324 594 195 355 180 371 509 766 1543 CITY or 1411772 673 373 465 NOWITEAll GASCO- ST. LOUIS NADE 569 211 COLE 20,900 727 IINANIUN MOM wow 216 217 219 \20,301 15 827 327 SIMON 168 229 207 814 13,071 'Arts 694 1074 342 146 141 198 147 279 MILLIS 948 243 127 104 269 30: NAMES167 231 102 I1_ICRAWF0110 St CLAIR uunvo 262 150 98 171 124 207 242 378 PENNON 134 tomer 131 PHELPS 268 325 62 96 123 PULASKI 519 270 766 329 62 246 294 674 PEARY 304 31 SALL AS 411 750 434 WASHINGTON553 359 215 PotA 163 LAELSIIE 356 268 g11011 It FGANCOIS 283 162 402 198 229 419 outotsois &Aaron 192 109 212 190 CAPE TEXAS marnoLos 179 SINAOLKAY 233 saw 171 322 149 160 166 203 166 162 129 903 139 160 777 II 1 96 MINE 38 WHINSION 68 134 57 277 318 101 663 JASPER 404 84 NAME 2332 264 1664 LAWININCE 275 249 167 205 2650 191 IDOUJI114111 1647 436 2222 195 155 148 1267 384 114 112 CHRISTIAN CARTEN Nowtc.t. mnrrou 309 241 276 91 551 STONE 206 157 78 572 imam 115 489 51 181 maw. NEW 425 177 450 NI FLU 390 °ZANE 218 EADNIS 139 1 51 303 220 NC DONALD 338 201 160 133 247 128 91 112 1096 240 178 100 1002 201 121 73 821 158 829 448 39 reNtscoT 1108 1019 342 OUNKUN

48 SUBSTANTIAL INEQUITIES IN SCHOOL $1.93 to $3,05. Thus, the increases during SUPPORT AND RESOURCES RESULT that period have been practically identical FROM PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ($1.12, $1.13, and $1.12 respectively) for ORGANIZATION the three types of districts. However, there are substantial school tax advantages for School districts of all types have been property located in elementary rather than experiencing substantial increases in their in high school districts. In 1967, the avezage tax levies during recent years as school school tax rate in high school districts was costs have been rising. Figure VIII pictures. 23 per cent higher than fcr six-director those increases since 1951 for the three types elementary school districts and 51 per cent of Missouri school districts. In the last 16 higher than for three-director elementary years, the average tax levy for three-direc- school districts. Differences also exist be- tor elementary school districts has grown tween the two types of elementary school from 89 cents to $2.01, for six-director districts, the 1967 average tax rate in the elementary school districts from $1.35 to six-director districts was 23 per cent more $2.48, and for high school districts from than in the three-director districts.

FIGURE ME AVERAGE SCHOOL TAX LEVY PER HUNDRED DOLLARS OF ASSESSED VALUATION BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF EACH TYPE

...v

300

290

2e0

270

260

250 240 A 230 V 220

210

200

190 A

180

170

160 I50 IF 140

130

120 sw-m-so HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS SIX-DIRECTOR [10 ELEMENTARY DISTMCTS THREE-DIRECTOR [00 1111-11114111 ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS CO 9

II. 4

0 1950 1955 1960 1965

SCHOOL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30

49 The differences in average tax levies for the distribution of school districts of each the three types of school districts are much type on the basis of their 1961-68 school less than the differences existing among the tax rates. districts in each category. Table 13 shows

TABLE 13

THE 1967-68 SCHOOL TAX LEVIESFOR DISTRICTS EXISTING ON JULY 1, 1968

Total Levy Number of School Districts Per $100 by Category Total of Assessed Elementary High School Number of Valuation School Districts Districts Districts

$0.00 - $0.24 7 7 0,25 -0,49 1 1 0.50 -0.74 4 4 0.75 -0.99 1 1

1.00 -1.24 16 16 1.25 -1,49 17 17 1.50 1.. 74 25 1 26 1,75 -1,99 34 4 38 2.00 -2,24 49 9 58 2.25 -2,49 18 21 39 2.50 -2.74 34 50 84 2,75 -2,99 38 81 119 3,00 -3,24 24 88 112 3,25 -3.49 17 106 123 3.50 -3. 74 13 54 67 3,75 -3,99 6 20 26 4,00 -4,24 4 16 20 4,25 -4,49 2 17 19 4,50 -4,74 2 4 6 4,75 -4.99 3 3 Total Number of Districts 312 474 786

50 The districts have been groupedinto to 46 elementary schooldistricts with such two categories in Table 13. The 474districts rates. Only 35 high schooldistricts had rates operating elementary and secondaryschools of less than $2.50. Sixty highschool districts, comprise one category and all others are as contrasted to14 elementary school dis- combined into elementary school districts. tricts, had school tax rates of$3.75 or more. The elementary school districts includesix- The median school tax rates were$2.28 for director and three-director districts; some elementary school districts and$3.20 for of these districts do not operate anyschools. high school districts.Itisevident that The school tax levies for elementary property is taxed at substantiallydifferent school districts range from less than25 rates depending upon thedistrict in which cents to more than $4.50. Thirteenof the it is located. 312 districts enjoyed tax rates of lessthan The school tax rates levied inthe various $1 and an additional 92 districts had rates districts depend upon thenumber of pupils of $1 to $1.99. In eight districts the rate being educated, the amountof property valua- was $4 or more.Although not shown in tion, and the nature of the educational pro- Table 13, separate tabulations were made gram desired by thecitizens. Some districts for the six-director districts, the three- are much more ablethan others to support director operating districts, and the three- an educational program.A measure of that director closed districts. Twelve of the 13 ability is the amount of assessedvaluation districts with school tax rates of less than per residentpupil. $1 were three-director closeddistricts. Table 14 presents a comparisonof the The median school tax rates for thethree assessed valuation per residentpupil in groups were $1.78 forthree-director closed grades 1-12 which can be taxedfor the districts, $2.40 for three-director operating support of the public school system.In maidng districts, and $2.65 for six-director dis- the commtations, all pupils ingrades 1-12 tricts. who livedinthe district were included. The school tax rates in the high school Thus, high school students wereincluded in districts had a smaller range and were the elementary school districtin which they generally higher than in the elementary lived rather than in the highschool district school districts. No high school district in which they attended school. had a rate of less than $1.50 ascontrasted

TABLE 14

THE ASSESSED VALUATION PER RESIDENT PUPIL IN GRADES 1-12 BY DISTRICTS, 1966-67

Assessed Valuation Number of School Districts Per Resident by Category Total Pupil in Elementary High School Number of Grades 1-12 School Districts Districts Districts Under $3,000 24 20 44 $ 3,000 - $ 4,999 62 111 173 $ 5,000 - $ 6,999 43 109 152 $ 7,000 - $ 8,999 49 93 142 $ 9,000 - $11,999 47 96 143 $12,000 - $14,999 34 27 61

$15,000 - $19,999 38 18 56 $20,000 and Over 40 4 44 Total Number of Districts 337 478 815

51 In general, there was a larger assessed Any presentation of assessed valuations valuation per resident pupil in grades 1-12in would be incomplete if attention wasnot the elementary school districts than in the directed to the problem of unequal assess- high school districts. Slightly more than ments. Real estate assessment levels vary 50 per cent of the high school distritAs, as so widely that the averageassessment ratio contrasted to 38 per cent of the elementary is computed for each county so that the re- school districts, had less than $7,000 of quired tax rate to qualify for secondlevel assessed valuation per resident pupil in equalization quota apportionment can be de- grades 1-12. Included in the wealthy districts termined. The average assessment ratio for (those with $15,000 or more assessed valua- each county is determined by comparingthe tion per resident pupil in grades 1-12) were actual sales value of a number of real 23 per cent of the elementary school districts estate transactions in a courity with the as- and less than 5 per cent of the high school sessed valuationsof the same pieces of districts. The median assessed valuations per property. resident pupil in grades 1-12 were $6,981 Figure IX presents the final certified for the high school districts and $8,612 for assessed valuation ratios for 1967 which were the elementary school districts. used in determining the required tax rates

SCOTLAND CL/UIR llromn4 NARRISON litRCI2 PUTMAN '4008 34.30 30.2 27.34 30.00 25.04 27.03 SENTRY 27.65 SULLIVAN - ADAIR KNOX I.IW IS FIGURE IIC 2.35 IDIOM 23.16 31.02 28 56 Mins 26.39 26.19 FINAL CERTIFIED ASSESSED VALUATION

OCKALS AC OM 25.37 L INII LIVINSISTON MIL SY MARION RATIOS BY COUNTIES -1967 27.00 25.00 27 73 21.69 28.66 33.82

KIALLS NIONROS RIINDOIJII 28.84 18.27 27.67 31.73

Ainoung H OWARD 11001111 33.24 LINCOLN 28.54 VONT - LAPAWITTI 29.91 I 35.04 JACSION 30.19 SOUSRY 24.45 CALLAWAY 29.04 COIT R 26.69 r PSTTIS ammo. 28.31 St CHARLES 29.'23 WARREN CI T Y OF 23.80 32.62 26 60 30.02 ST Lows 39.01 28.62 WORST (AU AMOCO- COLN MAK NADI 28.93 FRANKUN whirr OSSAN 30.03 29.60 INNTOSI 29.65 34.70 23.14 32.55 23.90 "MLLES 27 65 runes 29.50 __,,ctirmfrro St CLAIR CAS 13411 38.17

virmio.---7-10*^ 29.43 I n:ener 29.05 PNCLPS 30,41 25.38 ITS. PULASKI vieviEvE 27.04 31.47 34.64 CII-1714-117 31.96 27.54 29.70 WASNINSTON LACLSCW moor 24.96 IRON IIT IMAM:0111 28.90 28.46 isAcif 0"; 30.56 32.38 CAPE *ARTOIS 22.21 TEXAS RiYNCLOS RI RAMSAY DADS 30.62 28.76 30.17 31.33 29.71 'Rem SHANNON 25.45 25.50 WAYNE JASPER 30.39 t23.68 L AIPIWNCS 33.25 sou.mors scar T 30.50 27.71 24.31 30.64 25.10 CNN IVAN A RT CR !moon) ooututs HOWELL NEWTON 24.68 non 33.27 23.49 IDUTIAR 18.42 30.19 OR COON Nell 24.67 MPL C V MADRID ASSY OZARK 30.93 31.85 NC DONALD 28.59 20.70 18.31 29.72 21.50 30.89 30.73

KNISCOT

21.57 31.67 OUNKUN

52 to qualify for second level equalization quota inferred from these ratios that all property apportionment fordistribution during the within a county is assessed equally. In fact 1968-69 school year. The ratios range from the differences in assessments of property 18.27 in Chariton County to 40.08 in Worth within a county may well be greater than County. Adjacent counties may have sub- the differences between the county assessed stantially different ratios. For example, the valuation ratios. countiessurrounding low ratioChariton The distribution of counties (including County have ratios ranging from 19.14 to the city of St. Louis) by assessed valuation 31.78. Similar variations can be found hi ratio for 1967 is as follows: other areas of the state. It should not be

NUMBER OF RATIO COUNTIES

18.00 19.99 5

20.00 21.99 5

22.00 23.99 8

24.00 25.99 14

26.00 27.99 16

28.00 29.99 23

30.00 31.99 28

32.00 33.99 8

34.00 35.99 5

36.00 37.99 0

38.00 39.99 2

40.00 41.99 1

The median ratio for the counties is 29.2. dard. If equity in taxation is to be achieved, Although the median approaches the accepted equality of property assessment within the 30 per cent of true value, the ratios in county and between counties must be se- many counties differ widely from that stan- cured.

53 SECTION IV

METHODS OF ACHIEVING EFFECTIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION

School district organization has become Previoussections of this report have a matter of national concern. Missouri is" traced the development of school district only one of more than 20 states actively organization in Missouri and have examined engaged in projects of various types to im- its present status. The evidence has indicated prove the structure for public education. that extensive district reorganization has Ralph D. Purdy, Director of the Great Plains occurred, with most of it developing shortly School District Organization Project (Iowa, after the passage of the School District Re- Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota), reorganization Law in 1948. The record is cently voiced the seriousness of the situation impressive on the basis of the reduction in with these words: the total number of school districts. The results are far less significant when the Unprecedented demands upon the nature of the present district organization educational structure to meet the needs is examined and the entire educational situa- of the people, of the state, and of the tion is evaluated. The major thrust has been nation have revealed serious limita- on reducing the number of districts and not on tions and have emphasized the urgency creating effective districts which can provide of the situation. The explosion of know- a comprehensive educational program. The ledge, the adaptation of science and need for more extensivereorganization, technology to improved educational documented in the previous section, is well programs and to the methodology of summarized in the following statement on these programs, the knowledge and by Cooper, skills demanded today to fill the ever schooldistrictorganization changing employment opportunities, D awson, and Isenberg in the ENCYCLOPEDIA the problem of just how to learn to OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH: live and work together in peace, both The impetustoschooldistrict at home and abroad, are but a few reorganization has come chiefly from of the problems that could be listed. demands for improving the quality and As the attention of the people focus extending the scope of the educational upon the educational needs of these program, equalizing the tax burden, times, they have been compelled to and making more efficient use of the examinetheeducationalstructure school tax dollar. But there are other which was created and which is main- contributing factors. With the increase tained to provide programs and serv- of state financial aid for the support ices to meet those educational needs. of publiceducation,people of the As a result, the strengthening of the state as a whole have a direct financial structure for education has been ac- interest in the support of every dis- cepted as one of the imperative needs trict that receives aid, and they tend of this century by the people of the to look with disapproval on administra- several states. 1 tive organization that does not make 1. Ralph D. Purdy, PROBLEMS, ISSUES, efficient use of school money. The AND TRENDS IN SCHOOL DISTRICT OR- cost of constructing and equipping a GANIZATION, a paper presented at Central modern school building has become Regional Conference, The National Associa- too great to be carried by the tax base tion of State Boards of Education and the in many small districts. The shortage Iowa State Board of Education, Apri119,1967. of well-qualified teachers is felt most

54 keenly by small districts where teach- THE REORGANIZATION LAW OF 1948 ing loads tendto be heavier and HAS BEEN WIDELY USED equipment less satisfactory than in larger and better organized districts. Although eight or more different laws And, filially, shifts in population from for merging school districts were in effect the more sparsely settled rural areas inthe period preceding 1948,very few toward largecenters of population mergers were enacted. The School District have left many small districts with Reorganization Law, enacted at the extra ses- too few students to make efficient sion of the General Assembly in April of use of school funds or to provide an 1948, gave tremendous impetus to the reduc- adequate educational program. 2 tion in the number of school districts. The law provided for the creation of a With the need for more effective districts county board of education in every county well established, it is useful to examine the and assigned major responsibilities relating present methods of district reorganization to school district reorganization to those in Missouri. They will then be evaluated in boards. Sections 162.161, 162.171, and 162.181 relationto procedures which have been of the law succinctly state the duties of the found to be most effective in other states. county board of education and the procedure for reorganization in these words: MISSOURI HAS SEVERAL METHODS OF CHANGING DISTRICT ORGANIZATION 162.161. DUTIES OF COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. The county Education is recognized as a function of board of education shall the state. As a result, the state legislature, subject to constitutional provisions, has the (1) Make or cause to be made and authority to establish, maintain, and regulate kept current a comprehensive study schools. Thus, the powers held by school of each school district of the county. districts are those delegated to them by the The study shall include: state. School districts are purely creatures of the state and as such have no inherent (a) The assessed tax valuation powers. They may be created or destroyed of each existing district; and their powers may be increased or diminished at the will of the state. (b) The number of pupils at- The General Assembly has accepted re- tending school, average daily attend- sponsibility for public education in the state ance, and the population of all districts and has enacted legislation for the creation in the county; and alteration of school districts and the delegation of powers to such districts. Under (c) The location and conditions the present school laws of Missouri, there of school buildings and their acces- are three major methods by which school sibility to the pupils; districts may be established or enlarged: (1)reorganization,(2)consolidation,and (d) The location and condition of (3) annexation. The significant characteristics roads, highways and natural barriers of each of these procedures will be examined. within the county; (e) The high school facilities of the county; ( f) The conditions affecting the 2. Chester W. Harris, editor, ENCYCLO- welfare of the teachers and pupils; PEDIA OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, New York, 1960, p. 1,195. (g) Any other factors concern-

55 ing adequate facilities for the pupils. MAY DIVIDE UNREORGANIZEDDIS- TRICTS DISTRICTS MUST BECOM- (2) From time to time submit to the POSED OF CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY. state board of education specific plans In recommending proposed reorgan- for the reorganization of school dis- ization plans,thecounty board of tricts of the county. Each plan shall education may divide existing unreor- be in writing and shall include charts, ganized districts if division is in the maps and statisticalinformation ne- best interests of the children,and cessary to document properlythe plan place any portion in any proposed for the proposed reorganized districts district but each proposed district and to provide a comparison of exist- shall be composed of contiguous ter- ing districts with proposed reorganized ritory. districts. 162.181. REORGANIZATION, PRO- (3) Cooperate with boards of ad- CEDURE. Upon receipt of a plan for joining countiesinthe solution of the reorganization of districts in any common organizationproblems, and county, the state board of education submit to the state board of education shall examine the plan. Thestate for final decision any and all organiza- board shall approve or disapprove the tion questions on which the cooperating plan either in whole or in part.If boards fail to agree. the plan includes any proposed district with territory in more than one (4) Approve the budget prepared by county, the state board shall designate the county superintendent of schools the county containing that portionof the in cooperation with the clerks of the proposed district which has the highest boards of the districts under his su- assessed valuation as the county to pervision and approve the audit, made which the district belongs. The secre- by the county superintendent, of the tary of thecounty board shall be expenditures report prepared by the notified of the state board's action district clerk and submitted for the within sixty days following receiptof approval of the state board of educa- the plan by the state board.If the tion. state board finds that the reorganization plan is inadequate in whole or (5) Continue to advise with the in part,it shall return the plan to county superintendent of school s, the secretary of the county board with school patrons, and school officials on a full statementindicating the parts all matters pertaining to the improve- thereof it has approved and its rea- ment of the schools in the county. sons for finding theplan or any part inadequate. The county board has sixty (6) Designate some person to per- days to review the rejected plan or form the duties imposed by law on parts thereof, make alterations, a- the county superintendent of public mendments and revisions as deemed schools during any vacancy in his advisable and return the revised plan office or in the event of his incapacity or part to the stateboard for its to perform his duties. The person action. If the revised plan or part is designated during the vacancy or in- disapproved by the state board, the capacity of the county superintendent county board shall propose and submit shall have full power to perform the its own plan or pf xt to the voters within duties imposed upon him by the county sixty days follo .-ing receipi; of disap- board of education. proval of toe revised plan or part. No enlarged district may be proposed 162.171. REORGANIZATION PLAN or submitted without theapproval of

56 the state board unless the proposed (3) Any two or more adjacent six- district has a minimum of two hundred director districts without limitations pupils in average daily attendance for as to size or enrollment; or the preceding year or is comprised of least one hundred square miles of (4) Any common school district area. The plan or part shall be sub- which has two hundred or more chil- mitted to the qualified voters in the dren of school age by the last enumera- same manner as if the plan or part tion or any two or more adjacent com- had beenapprovedbythestate mon school districts which together board. 3 have an area of fifty square miles or have an enumeration of at least two If the proposed reorganization plan is hundred children of school age. approved by the State Board of Education, an election must be held within 60 days 162.221. S IX -DIRECTOR DIS- of the notification of approval. Section 162.191 TRICTPROCEDURE TO ORGANIZE sets forth the specific procedures for the BY PETITION OF VOTERS. election. A majority affirmative vote of the total votes cast is required for the adoption 1. When the voters of any one or of the proposed district. If the proposal is more districts as authorized in section not approved, no subsequent plan involving 162.211 desire to form a six-director any part of the same area may be submitted district, a petition signed by at least sooner than one year following the date of twenty-five voters of the district or the election at which the plan was defeated. districts shall be filed with the county superintendent of public schools. On receipt of the petition the county su- NUMEROUS DISTRICTS HAVE BEEN perintendent shall visit the districts ESTABLISHED UNDER CONSOLIDATION and investigate the needs of the area and determine the exact boundaries A second method whereby districts may of the proposed six-director district. be formed into an enlarged or six-director Inletermining these boundaries, he district is consolidation. Sections 162.211, s Ianso locate the boundary lines 162.221, 162.231, 162.241, and 162.251 of the as will in his judgment form the best state law define who may organize as a possible six-director district, having six-director district, prescribe the procedure due regard also to the welfare of to be followed, and describe the organization adjoining districts. of the new district in this manner: 162.211. SIX-DIRECTOR 2. Within thirty days after the re- DISTRICT WHO MAY ORGANIZE ceipt of the petition, the county super- AS. A six-director school district may intendent shall call an election of the be established by the voters of voters of the proposed district by posting three notices in public places (1) Any common school district in each district affected by the pro- which contains a city or town; posal stating the time, place and purpose of the election together with a (2) Any city or town which is divid- plat of the proposed district at least ed by a school district boundary line fifteen days before the election and and which is not located in a county of and shall also publish the notice two the first class; times in at least one newspaper in the county or counties, the first publi- 3. THE PUBLIC SCHOOL LAWS OF cation to be at least fifteen days be- MISSOURI, State Department of Education, fore and the last publication to be Jefferson City, Missouri, 1966, pp. 26-28. made not less than seven days before

57 the election. The county superinten- votes cast on the proposition at the dent shall file a copy of the petition organization election the county board and of the plat with the county clerk. of education in the case of districts The election shall be conducted in formed under a plan of reorganization, the manner provided in section 162.191 and the county superintendent in the except that the county superintendent case of districtsformed on petition shall perform all duties and have all of voters, shall order an election in powers imposed on or vested in the the district, at a time and place to be county board of education by that sec- fixed by the county board of education tion. The costs of holding the election or the county superintendent,not more shall be paid as provided in section than thirty days after the date of the 162.191. election when the six-director district was formed, for the purposeof elec- 3. If the proposed six-director dis- ting six directors in the district. The trict includes territory lying in two or electionshall be conducted in the more counties, the petitionshall be manner provided by sections162.361 filed with the county superintendent and 162.371. Until a majority of the of that county which contains the part district board members of the district of the proposed district having the are elected andqualified, the county highest assessed valuation, and the board of education, or the county su- district,if created, belongs to that perintendent as the case may be, shall county.Thecountysuperintendent perform the duties with respect to shall proceed as above set forth and conducting the election as would be in addition shall file a copy of the performed by the district board of petition and of the plat with the county education were it in existence, but the clerk of each county from which ter- costs of election shall be paidfrom ritory is proposed to be taken, ex- the incidental fund of the new district. cept that all plats and notices posted Two directors shall be elected to serve shall be signed by the county superin- until the next annual school election, tendent of all counties in which any two to serve until the second annual part of the proposed district lies. school election, and two to serve until If any county superintendent fails or the third annual school election. refuses to sign all plats and notices as required in thissection, the case 162.251. EFFECT OF ORGANIZA- may be appealed to thestate board TION OF NEW DISTRICT. The terms of education by any other county su- of office of all directors and officers perintendent interested, and the deci- of the school districts comprising the sion of the state board shall befinal. territory incorporatedinthesix- director district ceases upon the adop- 162.231. FAILURE TO APPROVE tion of the plan of reorganization and PROPOSED DISTRICT EFFECT. the organization of the board of direc- If any proposed six-director district tors of the six-director district, and does not receive the required majority such officers shall deliver to the board affirmative vote, the school districts of directors of the newly formed school constituting the proposed new school district all property, records, books district shall remain as they were and papers belonging to the component prior to the election. districts. All funds in the hands of the county or township treasurer to the 162.241. ELECTION OF DIREC- credit of the various districts wholly TORS IN NEWLY-FORMED DISTRICT. incorporated in the new six-director If a proposal to form a six-director district, shall be immediately trans- district receives a majority of the ferred to the credit of the treasurer

58 of the six-director district.If any that additional area may be annexed are by former six-director district is wholly extension of the city limits and upon the merged in any new six-director dis- petition of the voters. Sections 162.421 and trict, as provided herein, the treasurer 152.441 prescribe these procedures: of the former six- director district shall immediately turn over to the 162.421. EXTENSION OF CITY treasurer of the new district all funds LIMITS EXTENDS SCHOOL DISTRICT belonging to the former six-director BOUNDARIES, EXCEPTIONS AN- district and shall make settlement NEXIkTION OF REMAINDER OF DIS- therefor as provided by section TRICT. 165.101. The directors of the new district shall direct that the new district 1. Except districts containing a city faithfully perform all existing con- or a part of a city having more than tracts and legal obligations of the com- seventy-five thousand inhabitants and ponent districts. 4 districts in counties of the first class, the extension of the limits of any city Consolidation differs from reorganization or town beyond the boundaries of a in four major respects. First, the proposed six-director school district in which plan is initiated by the voters rather than it is included shall automatically ex- the county board of education. Second, the tend the boundaries of that district county superintendent performs the duties to the same extent, effective on the and has all the powers which the county first day of July next following the board has under reorganization. Third, the extension of the limits of the city or approval of the state board of education town, and except in counties of the need not be sought. Fourth, under reorgan- second class if the extension of the ization a maximum payment of $50,000 may limits of the city or town includes be received to help pay for building and territory contained in another six- equipment expense while under consolidation director school district which main- only $1,000 is received for each elementary tains a high school, then the school school building abandoned and a maximum of district boundary lines shall not be $2,000 per building toward the construction enlarged to include territory in said of a central high school building. six-director district by reason of the The 1967 Act of the General Assembly, extension of the city or town limits. which created the Missouri School District Reorganization Commission and directed it 2. Whenever, by reason of the ex- to develop a master plan of school district tension of the limits of any city or organization for the entire state, also pro- to', -1, a portion of the territory of any vides that all mergers under the consolida- sci.,,o1 district adjacent thereto is in- tion law shall cease until October 15, 1969. corporated in a six-director district, However, it does not restrict the merging the inhabitants of the remaining parts of districts under the reorganization and of the district have the right to be annexation laws. annexed to the six-director district. When such part of a school district SCHOOL DISTRICTS MAY BE ENLARGED desires to be so annexed, a special THROUGH ANNEXATION PROCEDURES election or an election at a special meeting shall be held as provided in The third method whereby districts may section 162.441, and if a majority of be enlarged is by annexation. The two ways the votes cast favor annexation, the secretary shall certify the fact, with 4. THE PUBLIC SCHOOL LAWS OF a copy of the record, to the board of Missouri,State Department of Education, the district and to the board of the Jefferson City, Missouri, 1966, pp. 30-33. six-director school district; where-

59 upon the board of the six-director lots shall be district shall meet and confirm the annexation by a proper resolution of For annexation record. When such part of a school and district has no organization, any ten Against annexation. voters may calla meeting of the district and proceed as provided in 3. If a majority of the votes cast section 162.441; and the secretary of favor annexation, the secretary shall the meeting shall certify, if the major- certify the fact, with a copy of the ity votes for annexation, to the board record, to the board of the district of directors of the six-director dis- and to the board of the district to trict, and the same action shall be which annexation is proposed; where- taken as provided above. (As amended upon the board of thesix-director Laws 1965, S.B. No. 315, §1.) district to which annexation is proposed shall meet to consider the advisability 162.441. ANNEXATION TO AD- of receiving the district and if a JOINING SIX-DIRECTOR DISTRICT majority of all the members of the PROCEDURE ANNEXATION TO board favor annexation, the boundary NONADJOINING DISTRICT, WHEN lines of the six-director school dis- ALLOWED. trict from that date shall be changed to include the district, and the board 1. If any common school district shall immediately notify the clerk or six-director district which adjoins of the district which has been annexed a six-director district, including urban of its action. districts, desires to be attached there- to for school purposes, upon the receipt 4. Upon annexation, all property of a petition setting forth such fact, and money on hand belonging therto signedeither by ten voters of the shall immediately pass into the pos- district or by a majority of the voters session of the board of the six-direc- of the district, whichever i s the lesser, tor school district. the school board of the district desiring to be so attached shall order a special 5. If a majority of the votes cast meeting or special election for the are against annexation, noother elec- purpose of voting on the proposal, tion on the proposal shall be called giving notice as required by section within two years after the election. 162.061; except that in districts wholly, or partially, within cities having three 6. Any school district may annex to hundred thousand to seven hundred any high school district in thecounty thousand inhabitants, the petition seek- in the manner provided by this section ing attachment to an adjoining district if, prior to the time the proposition or to any high school district in the is submitted to the voters of the dis- county as hereinafter in this section trict, the annexation, is approved in provided, for school purposes shall be writing by the state board of educa- signed by at least ten per cent of the tion.(Laws1963,p.227,§3-43 registered voters of the district. (165.300), as amended Laws 1965, S.B. No. 262, §1.) 5 2. The voting shall be by ballot at the special school meeting in the case of common school districts or at the special election as provided for 5. THE PUBLIC SCHOOL LAWS OF in section 162.371 in the case of six- MISSOURI, State Department of Education, director school districts, and the bal- Jefferson City, Missouri, 1966, pp. 41-43.

60 Districts are sometimes enlarged by Legislation relating to school district means of boundary changes. Section 162.431 reorganization may be divided into three provides that 10 per cent of the votersas general types: (1) permissive, (2) mandatory, determined by the total vote cast for all and (3) semipermissive. The AASA Com- candidates for election as members of the mission on School District Reorganization in school board,divided by the number of its publication describes the three types of members of the school board elected at the legislation as follows: last school election may petition for boundary changes. An election must be called 1. Mandatory legislation reorgan- and a majority affirmative vote in the districts izes local school districts by direct affected is needed for the boundary change legislative action without referring the to be effected. If the proposal fails, the mat- action to the voters for approval. ter may be appealed to the county board or boards of education within fifteen days. The 2. Permissive legislation makes law provides for a board of arbitration which reorganization possible but leaves the has the power of final decision whether the initiation of action leading to reorgan- boundaries shall be changed as requested or ization and decisions on proposed re- be left unchanged. organizations entirely with the voters A fourth, and rarely used, method of an- at the local level in the areas affected. nexation is the formation of a new district from two or more common districts or the 3. Semipermissive legislation re- change of boundaries between two or more quires that certain steps and planning common districts. Section 162.681 provides procedures for reorganizing districts that upon receipt of a petition by ten or be taken and that the proposed plan more voters, the district clerk of each dis- be submitted to the voters, but it trict affected shall give notice of the desired leaves final approval or rejection of a changes. The voters shall decide the question proposed reorganization to a vote of the by a majority vote in each district of those people in the area affected. Such legis- who vote upon the proposition. lation emphasizes planning with local adoption. 6 Thedistinguishingfeaturesandt h e LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT DISTRICT strengths and weaknesses of each type will REORGANIZATION IS OF THREE TYPES be treated briefly. For a more detailed treat- ment the reader is referred to the publica- The method of implementing a school tion, EFFECTIVE L E GISL A TI ON FOR reorganization plan may well determine its SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION, pre- success or failure. The critical factor,for pared by Arthur L. Summers for the Great the most part, is the framework of legisla- Plains School District Organization Project tion which prescribes the procedural format in January 1968. for district reorganization. Implicit in any study of the enabling legislation are two PERMISSIVE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN questions: LEAST EFFECTIVE IN CREATING SOUND DISTRICTS 1. Who is responsible for the reorganization? Permissive legislation has along history. It has been used by most states in the past How is the reorganization tobe accom- plished ? 6. AASA Commission on School District To help answer these questions, an examina- Reorganization, SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGAN- tion of what other states have done may be IZATION, American Association of School beneficial. Administrators, Washington, 1958, p. 167.

61 and relics of such legislation are still found tion could be considered satisfactory in some states. if....the process produced satisfacto- In the early development of the states, ry districts at a satisfactory rate... small school districts were practical because It is the judgment of this writer after the means of transportation were inadequate observing and participating inthe and the educational needswere extremely movement for these thirty years that limited.Children usually had to walk to both the rate and the productare not school. In fact, it is often said the size of generally satisfactory. 7 the early school districtswas determined by the length of the legs of the six-year The use of permissive legislation often old child. As roads were developed and im- results in a state havinga variety of laws, proved and transportation became available, each geared to some special purpose. Un- it was possible to travel farther ina shorter fortunately, having a number of such laws time. The need for the original small dis- does not increase the speed of achieving trictsdeclined. During the developmental school district reorganization. The states period, the control of schools resided largely relying on this method have found it to be at the local level and citizens were given a slow and ineffective process. It is usually substantial freedom in establishing new dis- voluntary,being initiatedlocally by the tricts. When it became necessary to forma board or through petition and implemented largerdistrict,it was only logical that by the favorable vote of the local citizens. the process should be initiated and finalized Since the proposals do not require approval at the local level. Thus, laws were passed by county, region, or state agencies, there which were permissive by nature. When it is a genuine lack of overall planning. The became desirable to consolidate small dis- net result is a spotty, piecemeal attackon tricts, it was natural to turn to permissive problems which are of regional or statewide legislation as the tradition for it had already significance. Summers emphasizes these four been well established. major objections to permissive legislation: The essence of permissive legislationre- sides in the belief that school patrons at 1. Usually there is no overall plan- the local level will know what is the best ning for adequate redistricting. type of district organization since their children are the ones affected. This belief in 2. Voluntary merging of districts many instances has not been supported by may result in disregarding the right actual practice. School districts have been of all children to reside in good school formed for a variety of reasons other than districts. The wealthy districts merge, obtaining the best education possible for the leaving the less wealthy to operate children. Some districts have been formed schools. or continued to maintain lower tax levies. At times, the crucial factor has been the 3. Permissive legislation that has satisfaction of the whims of a feuding faction been developed by any of the states resulting from personal disagreements. Some for merging districts completely dis- districts have been maintained to satisfy the regards any state wide planning fora desire of a few people to exercise authority. pattern of adequate school districts. If school patrons always considered tho best interest of the students, permissive legislation might provide an acceptable procedure. However, most authorities on school district organization agree with Cushman in 7. M.L. Cushman, "The Questionable classifying this method as being slow and Theory of Local School District Reorganiza- unsatisfactory. He states: tion",THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION RECORD, UniversityofNorth Dakota, Local school district reorganiza- Vol. XLVIII, No. 2, November 1962, p. 26.

62 .-x- 4"`

4. Experience shows that the con- The first form is the "direct" mandatory solidation of large numbers of school procedure whereby the state legislature es- districts by permissive legislation is tablishes districts by law. The second form is a slow and long drawn-out processand termed "indirect" Inandatory whereby the satisfactory results have not been legislature creates a state agency and/or achieved. 8 regional agencies to establish the districts. Both "direct" and "indirect" mandatory legis- MANDATORY LEGISLATION PLACES lation have the common factor that the ap- DISTRICT REORGANIZATION ON A proval of the voters is not sought through STATEWIDE BASIS referendum.Quite often the state agency establishedto facilitate reorganization is Several states have found it desirable separatefromthestate department of education. to achieve a statewide plan of district organ- Some states have legislated the elimina- ization through mandatory legislation. Dis- tion of districts which fail to meet certain trictscreated in this manner have often standards of size or type. Authority is usually conformed tocounty lines or have been delegated to a state or county agency to modified county districts which excluded annex districts to adjacent districts.Ex- major cities from the county units. States amples of laws eliminating types of dis- which have established enlarged school districts are the recent ones in Minnesota tricts through mandatory legislation include and South Dakota which require all districts the following: operating elementary schoolsonly to be attached by a certain date to districts having STATES WITH 12-year schools. Legislation of this nature COUNTY UNITS has the advantage of reducing drastically Florida 1939 the number of school districts; however, it Louisiana 1912 can be criticized because it fails to provide Maryland 1868 for a sound plan of district organization. Its Nevada 1956 major thrust is toward reduction of the 1933 number of districts rather than the creation West Virginia of adequate districts. Summers comments on the character- STATES WITH istics of "direct" and "indirect" mandatory MODIFIED legislation in these terms: COUNTY UNITS DIRECT MANDATORY LEGISLATION. Alabama 1903 Georgia 1945 Statesestablishing districts by Kentucky 1908 direct mandatory legislation adopted Mississippi 1953 a brief and simple law directing the North Carolina 1923 disestablishment of existing districts Tennessee 1907 and the establishment of new districts Utah 1915 to be effective on a certain date or 1923 within specified time limits. Usually Virginia the act included revisions of all other laws to conform to the satisfactory Mandatory legislation may take two forms. operation of the new districts esta- 8. ArthurL.Summers, EFFECTIVE blished. Since the new districts were LEGISLATIONFOR SCHOOL DISTRICT established by a direct act of the REORGANIZATION, The Great Plains School legislature, no penalties or incentives District Organization Project, Lincoln, Ne- for accomplishing district reorganiza- braska, 1968, p. 4. tion were necessary. However, in some

63 cases the state aid laws were adjusted Mandatory legislation, either direct or to encourage the development of facil- indirect, is being used in many states to ities, programs, and services within correct the school district inequities created newly established districts. by permissive legislation. The passage of mandatory legislation is sometimes hindered INDIRECT MANDATORY LEGISLATION. by the inability of people to distinguish between administrative and attendance units. This type of mandatory legislation Cushman points up the need to differentiate created a state agency at the state between the two when he stated: level and a county agencyat the county level, and authorized and direc- The first thing that has to be done ted the two agencies to reorganize and is to separate in theory the process establish new districts. Some features of forming administrative units from common to this type of legislation the processof forming attendance included: units. The formation of an administrative school district is an instantaneous 1. The creation of a state agency process; the local ratification of school usually separate from the state edu- districts takes place on a given day cational agency but with some cooper- and the law provides for the effective ative liaison with the state educational date of such new school district and agency. the abolition of the legal existence of its components... 2. Authorization of the state agency However, the organization of at- toadopt standards and promulgate tendance units is a long time process. rules for the reorganization process. It takes time to rearrange transporta- tionroutes,to secure new school 3. Directions to the county agencies buses, to close one room schools, to to study school districts, hold hearings erect new school buildings... and submit proposed districts to the THE CREATION OF NEW AD- state agency for approval. MINISTRATIVE UNITS CAN PROPER- LY BE CONSIDERED A FUNCTION 4. Authorization of the state agency OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND to withhold state funds if and until the THE CREATION AND ALTERATION county agency complies with directions OF ATTENDANCE UNITS OUGHT in submitting proposals to conform to PROPERLY TO BE CONSIDERED THE approved standards. PREROGATIVE OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, THE PEOPLE AND 5. Time limits of two to four years THEIR EDUCATORS, AND THEIR within which to establish new districts. LOCAL BOARDS OF EDUCATION. 10 6. The exact procedure for order- Mandatory legislation concerns itself only ing the new districts established and with the creation of administrative districts the effective date new districts were and leaves the establishment of attendance centers to local citizens and school officials. to begin operations. 9 Such legislation becomes much easier to

9. ArthurL.Summers,EFFECTIVE 10. M. L. Cushman, "The Questionable LEGISLATIONFOR SCHOOL DISTRICT Theory of Local School District Reorganiza- REORGANIZATION, The Great Plains School tion",THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION District Organization Project, Lincoln, Ne- RECORD, University of North Dakota, Vol. braska, 1968, p. 23. XLVIII, No. 2, November 1962, p. 29.

64 accept when the differentiation betweenad- in semipermissive legislationif effective ministrative and attendance units is clearly district reorganization is to be achieved: understood. 1. The legislative act should in- SEMIPERMISSIVE LEGISLATION clude these provisions: COMBINES PERMISSIVE AND MANDATORY FEATURES a. Define overallobjectives the state desires to accomplish in school Some states have become dissatisfiedwith redistricting. the district reorganization progressunder permissive legislation but have not been b. Establish a state agency and ready to move to mandatory legislation.As county agencies or multi county agen- a result, acompromise process, termed cies for the duration of the reorganiza- semipermissive or mandatory-permissive tion program with necessary powers legislation, has been developed. As the name duties to achieve results and complete indicates, it combines some of the features the program. of the other two methods. It usually includes extensive planning, is mandatory in respect c. Give direction to andprovi- to requiring that proposals be preparedand sions for desirable standards to be presented, and retains the permissive feature developed and followed. of permitting the citizens of the areato approve or reject theproposed district. d. Arrange state aid laws and There are many variations in the semi- financial incentives to encourage per- permissive legislation from state to state. fecting districts meeting prescribed However, the common characteristics in- standards. clude:(1)a state agency toprovide the overall direction, (2)a county or regional e. Repealand/or amend any agency to preparespecific proposals for the existing laws that cause road blocks area, and (3) thesubmission of the plan to to the formation of new districts. the voters for approval or rejection. The impact of semipermissive legislation f. During the period of the dis- upon district reorganizationdepends largely trictreorganization,requirean y upon the manner in whichduties and respon- merging of districts under other laws sibilities are allocated. Granting the state to be approved by the state and county agency substantial power,providing it with agencies, or provide for a moratorium a capable professionalstaff, and allocating on merging of districtsexcept by the sufficient funds to the agency are features district reorganization law. contributing to effective reorganization. In states where the powers and dutiesof the g. Provide formandatory refer- state agency have been restricted, the re- endum on proposed districts, clear sults have not been much better than under instructionsforcallingelections, permissive legislation. Other recommended specifying time limits, and requiring features of semipermissive legislation in- a single majorityof the total votes clude the provision of approval bysimple cast for ratifying the proposal. majority vote in the entire area rather than in each component part and the requirement h. For proposals rejected by that state and regional agencies continueto voters, provide for revision of pro- function untildistrict reorganization has posals and requirements for submis- been completed. sion of subsequent plans, causing every Summers has summarized very well the effort to be made to attain satisfactory essential features which must be inchded districts over the entire state.

65 i. Prescribe time limits within to meet prescribed standards. which various procedural steps are to be completed to attain reorganization i. Appoint a new county agency of reasonably adequate school dis- where any existing county agency fails tricts for the entire state and remedies to perform its assigned functions with- where time limits and directions are inthe time limits required or be not followed. authorized to perform the functions in lieu of the county agency. j. Where districts have been rejected by the voters, authorize the j. Make periodic reports on the state agency toestablish districts progress of district reorganization to under certain alternatives and pre- the state legislature. scribed conditions. k. Establish districts und er k. Proceduresf o radjusting certain prescribed conditions. assets and liabilities. 3. Create a county agency or mul- 1. Provisions for transporting ticounty agency with provisions for pupils. continuing until the redistricting program is completed, for the purpose of 2. Create a state agency to admin- planning,preparing and presenting ister the reorganization program for districtreorganizationplans. The thetime required to complete the major powers and duties assigned to redistricting.Delegate to the state a county agency include: agency the necessary powers and duties to accomplish results. These powers a. Provisionsfor organizing, and duties include the following: meeting, and conducting business. a. Employ necessary profes- b. Sufficient funds for opera- sional and clerical assistance. tions. b. Formulate policies and prin- c. In general terms, the factors ciples to be followed. toconsiderin making studies and preparing plans. c. Develop methods of procedure to guide county agencies. d. Procedures and preparations of comprehensive plans for school d. Adopt standards for redis- redistricting that meet standards pre- tricting. scribed by the state agency. e. Counsel with county agencies, e. Requirements for plans to be school officials and citizens. presented to the state agency within certain time limits. f. Require overall planning of proposed districts and that all merging f. Provisions for requiring con- of districts take place within thr, plan. sultation between the state agency and the county agency where a plan or a g. Approve or disapprove plans, portion of a plan is disapproved by a or parts of plans, submitted by county stateagency and for requiring the agencies. county agency to revise and resubmit the plan within a specified time limit. h. Recommend changes in plans

66 I , g. Provisions for holding hear- have contributed little to any statewide pro- ings on proposed plans. gram of school organization. Since they are dependent primarily on local initiative, the h. Consideration of reorganiza- extent to which they have been used varies tionproposals presented by local widely from one section of the state to people when such proposals are con- another. sistent with standards for compre- The Missouri reorganization law can be hensive plans. classified as semipermissive legislation. It is short on mandatory provisions. Although i. Provisions for carrying out a county board of education was created in election procedures for approval of each county, the law did not require con- proposed districts by voters and for tinuous activity by each board. Each county electing or appointing board members board of education has been free to deter- for new districts adopted. mine the scope of its activity. The lack of a statewide plan has been a serious handicap. j. Where previous proposals The result has been a school district struc- are defeated, requirements for con- ture notable for its complexity, as is evi- tinued study, revision, and resubmis- denced by the state map of present school sion of proposals within specified time districts found in the folder at the back of limits until reorganization program this report. is completed. 11 Since existing legislation has failed to providean acceptable statewidedistrict organization, more action will be needed. A MISSOURI REORGANIZATION statement by the Research and Policy Com- LEGISLATION IS ONLY PARTIALLY mittee of the Committee for Economic De- EFFECTIVE velopment, recommending an attack on school redistricting by state laws, may well be Although Missouri has been using several used as a guide in Missouri. Its statement methods to achieve school district reorgan- reads as follows: ization, the results have indicated that they have been only partially successful. The Immediate reorganization of small excessive number of existing districts, the school systems into effective units of many districts operating no schools or ele- local government is required in most mentary schools only, and the large per- states,4ncluding almost all of the centage of high school districts with small most populous states. This is an old enrollments, limited staff, and meager educa- situation, widely appreciated by ex- tional programs bear witness to the inef- perts for many years in which pro- fectiveness of existing reorganization legis- gress, though real, has been slow. lation. We urge a fresh attack upon it. The Missouri consolidation and annexation laws are examples of permissive reor- A large proportion of the school ganization legislation. Although some re- systems in the country are much too duction in the number of school districts small to provide any kind of schools has resulted through these procedures, they efficiently. They can't provide an adequate curriculum.They are highly wasteful of school personnel and typi- cally offset the high costs this entails 11. Arthur L. Summers, EFFECTIVE by maintaining low salary scales and LEGISLATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT by absorbing an exorbitant share of REORGANIZATION, The Great Plains School state school funds. In the great major- District Organization Project, Lincoln, Ne- ity of instances, school districts with braska, 1968, pp. 41-43. small enrollments are not the neces-

67 sary resultof population sparsity. have achieved school systems of ap- Rather, they reflect the fact that the propriate size by mandatory state school system covers only a tiny area. legislation. The practicality of reor- In only 19 states is the average geo- ganization by compulsory state law graphic area covered by a school sys- is demonstrated by the fact that 23 tem as much as 225 square miles states have at some time or other equivalent to an area 15 miles square. reorganized their school districts in In 21 states it is less than 49 square this way. These include all the South- miles. eastern and New England states and A complete school program can such sparsely settled Western states hardly be conducted by a unified school as New Mexico andNevada. Most of system with much less than 2,000 them succeeded in eliminating or al- students. Substantial educational ad- most eliminating small districts. vantages continue to accrue until a The reorganization plan in a few school system has perhaps 25,000 of these states was not fully adequate, students. There are financial advan- and in the New England state reorgan- tages of many kinds in even larger ization was carried out so long ago units, although other problems begin that redistricting is again needed. De- arising in an extremely large system. spite this, these 23 states together contain fewer school districts with less than 1,200 pupils than do any of ten individual states that have not adopted All experience shows that effec- compulsory state plans. tive consolidation cannot and will not THE STATE GOVERNMENTS be achieved by the local units them- CREATED THE EXISTING MULTI- selves. Even under rather strong state PLICITY OF UNITS, AND IT IS THEIR pressure, "voluntary"reorganization RESPONSIBILITY TO CREATE UNITS requiring approval by voters in the OF SCHOOL GOVERNMENT THAT local districts not only has proceeded CAN OPERATE EFFECTIVELY AND atasnail's pace, but has usually EFFICIENTLY. ACHIEVEMENT OF resulted in consolidated districts that EFFECTIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT RE- are still too small toprovide an ef- ORGANIZATION REQUIRES MANDA- fective program or a sufficiently broad TORY ACTION BY THE STATE tax base. GOVERNMENT. 12 On the other hand, many states 12. Research and Policy Committeeof the Committee for EconomicDevelopment, PAYING FOR BETTER PUBLICSCHOOLS, New York, 1960, pp. 6 and 7.

68 SECTION V

THE RECOMMENDED PLAN OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION FOR MISSOURI

The tailoring of a school district struc- EDUCATIONAL PROBLEMS IN ture to fit the varied needs of public educa- METROPOLITAN AREAS AND RURAL tion is no mean task. Virtually, every con- AREAS ARE EQUALLY CRITICAL dition which increases the complexity of school governance can be found somewhere Previous sections of this report have in the state. Missouri contains areas of high documented the educational inequities which density of population in the metropolitan exist throughout the state. Substantial evi- centers and a sparsity of school-age children denceregarding the meager educational in the rural areas. The heavy concentration opportunities in the many small districts of disadvantaged children in the cities con- has been presented. Because of the large trasts with other large concentrations of number of such districts, the impression may children from high income families who have have been created that the more sparsely fledtothe suburbs. Taxable wealth and populated areas, the rural areas, and the educational needs are distributed unevenly out-state areas in general have a monopoly throughout thestate.These factorsand on educational problems. Such beliefs are others compound the problem of providing completely erroneous. good schools for all children. The situation in the metropolitan areas Thus, public education in Missouri hurts may be even more critical than in'the rest in many respects and in many areas. Much of the state and equitable solutions more of its pain is caused by a school district difficult to attain. Evidence abounds to sup- structure which was created to serve a port a case for educational reform in the previous era. While a sensible school dis- Greater St. Louis Metropolitan Area. 1The trict pattern alone will not resolve all of disparity between the best and the worst the problems confronting the schools, little on every measure Gf quality is readily progress can be expectedwithout it. A major apparent. Moreover, there is every indica- reorganization of school districts is needeth tion that such disparities will continue in- This report and its recommendations are exorably to grow. The movement of industry addressed to all who have a voice in the and the flight of the more prosperous tax- making of decisions which affect the schools. payers to selected suburbs continues, leav- While educators ought to be included in ing thecity and some of the inner-ring this audience, the base for school improve- suburbs with a declining tax base to provide ment must be much broader. Indeed, no education for an increasing percentage of mount of exhortation of educators will pupils from officially designated poverty meliorate theconditions confronting the schools. This is so because the most serious problems are political rather than educational. For example, the politica choices 1. For a cogent brief on this subject, which have been made about thedistribu- see A TALE OF TWOCITIES, A BLUEPRINT tion of the school tax dollar and the location OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN THE of school district boundaries place serious ST. LOUIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1968.Also, constraints on the operation of schools. The HARD TIMES AND GREAT EXPECTATIONS, wisdom of all educators in the region can- 1967, is suggested as an unabridged account not reduce the disparity of educational op- of the conditions in the St. Louis Public portunity under these conditions. Schools.

69 areas. The absurdity of this implicit policy had just written his book, AMERICA AS A of providing the most education for those CIVILIZATION. The chairman of a group who need it the least, and conversely, the asked him to describe American civilization least education for those who need it the in one word. Mr. Lerner thought hard and most, is clear when the total environment fast.What isit?Isit freedom? Isit of the pupil is considered. Coleman's study, democracy, decency, equality? These are the for example, revealed that the impact of kinds of things that went through his mind. good schoolsisgreatest in lower class And suddenly, he said, "Access. You see neighborhoods. 2Stated differently, children we have a Declaration of Independence which from upper class families do very well re- says that all men are created free and equal. gardless of the quality of their education I hope they are born free and will remain while children in the ghetto have a strong free, but they are not born equal. They're dependency on the school to provide social born unequal, with very unequal abilities and and economic mobility. Moreover, those potentials. But we have the notion in America who have sought refuge by fleeing to the that there ought to be equal opportunities suburbs have discovered the wisdom of and like chances so that every one of these John Donne's words, "No man is an island unequally born youngsters gets a chance to unto himself." Ugliness cannot be quaran- develop his unequal abilities to the full. In tined. It creeps across municipal and school this sense 'access' is the heart of American district boundaries, feeding on the indiffer- experience." ence caused by the flight to the more distant Table 15 reveals the conditions created suburbs.Ignorance, poverty, lawlessness, when the school district structure is not and a host of other evils of educational patterned on these principles. It shows the neglect reduce the quality of urban life for direct relationship between available wealth all. If the problems of the city are permitted and access to educational opportunity. The to fester unabated, the prosperity and well- school districts of St. Louis County appear being of the entire region are endangered. in virtually the same order when ranked from highest to lowest on both the amount The essential elements of educational of assessed valuation and expenditure per reform include the pooling of the human and pupil Clayton and Ladue are at the top and fiscalresources of the area to support public education. The aspirations and wealth Valley Park and Kin loch are at the bottom of all are needed. The structure for educa- of both measures. In the third ranking, based tion in the St. Louis metropolitan region on the amount of tax levy, the order is should unite rather than fragment efforts to practically reversed. Those districts with provide good schools. The citizens in every high assessed valuations and high expendi- part of the city and region should have a tures have the lowest tax levies. For ex- voice in the setting of educational policy ample,five of the six districts with the for the entire area. The economic, social, lowest tax rates appear in the top six when and educational interests of the citizens in ranked on expenditure per pupil. A one dollar the city and area are inextricably related; tax levy produces $428.22 in Clayton and the quality of education in every segment $27.15 in Kin loch. Wealth and educational must become the concern of everyone. needs are distributed very unevenly through- Max Lerner recounts an experience he out the area. Concentration of pupils in need had with a group of writers in Warsaw which of compensatory and remedial educational programs liveinareas of least wealth. illustrates further the need for educational Clearly, more is needed than just a strong reform in the St. Louis region. Mr. Lerner commitment to education or a willingness tolevy taxesifequalityof educational opportunity is to be attained in the St. Louis 2. JamesS.Coleman, EQUALITY OF metropolitan area. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, U.S. Gov- Although the educational conditions in the ernment Printing Office, 1966. St. Louis and Kansas City areas are not

i TABLE 15

RANK ORDER OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS ON ASSESSEDVALUATION PER PUPIL, ON EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL, AND ON SCHOOL TAX LEVY,1966-67 Assessed Valuation Expenditure 1966 School Per Pupil School Per Pupil School Tax Rank District in ADA District in ADA District Levy

1 Clayton $42,822 Clayton $1,176 Parkway $4.35

2 Ladue 25,271 Ladue 863 Wellston 4.24

3 Brentwood 22,217 University City 795 Kin loch 4.23

4 Jennings 21,059 Jennings 785 Kirkwood 4.20

5 Affton 17,275 Brentwood 782 Hazelwood 4.15

6 Maplewood 17,082 Maplewood 660 Webster Groves 4.07

7 University City 16,015 Affton 660 Ferguson 3.98

8 Berkeley 15,867 Normandy 630 Valley Park 3.89

9 Normandy 13,740 Wellston 629 Rockwood 3.85

10 Webster Groves 13,326 Webster Groves 621 University City 3.72

11 Mehlville 13,080 Kirkwood 607 Riverview Gardens 3.71

12 Lindbergh 13,140 Pattonville 601 Pattonville 3.62

13 Kirkwood 12,370 Berkeley 551 Mehlville 3.58

14 Wellston 12,13'7 Riverview Gardens 544 Hancock Place 3.58

15 Bayless 12,027 Lindbergh 538 Lindbergh 3.50

16 Parkway 11,817 Mehiville 527 Affton 3.41

17 Pattonville 11,717 Bayless 505 Normandy 3.39

18 Hazelwood 11,316 Rockwood 505 Bayless 3.36

19 Hancock Place 11,223 Parkway 504 Ritenour 3.35

20 Riverview Gardens 11,153 Ferguson 495 Ladue 3.25

21 Rockwood 10,102 Hazelwood 491 Berkeley 3.20

22 Ritenour 9,642 Ritenour 484 Brentwood 3.13

23 Ferguson 9,417 Hancock Place 482 Maplewood 3.10

24 Valley Park 6,572 Valley Park 431 Jennings 2.87

25 Kin loch 2,715 Kin loch 425 Clayton 2.82

SOURCE: Sixteenth Annual Report of the St. Louis County, MissouriPublic Schools, 1967.

71 identical,neither area lacks for critical the municipality of Kansas City presently issues. The tremendous differences which receiving educational program services from exist among the school districts of Jackson 17 school districts in three counties. County are illustrated in Table 16. The inequalities of educational opportunity School attendance in the districtsof in the Kansas City area are a severe indict- Jackson County ranges from 10.8 pupils ment of theorganizational structure for in ADA at Pleasant Valley to 65,323.6 in public education. Local school officials are Kansas City. Three districts maintain high responding intelligently and rationally to the schools that fail to meet the AAA standards. demands of an irrational system of local Only District No. 33Kansas City provides school district organization and finance which an acceptable vocational program. Special has been set up by accidents of history. The educational programs for the exceptional present school district structure effectively child are not uniformly available. Property frustrateseffortstobuildstrong, well- in the Pleasant Valley School District is planned and coordirated educational pro- taxed 20 cents for school purposes as con- grams which are accessible to serve the trasted to a rate of $4.50 in Hickman Mills. needs of all. A most peculiar organizational pattern shows TABLE 16

PUPIL AND FINANCIAL DATA OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN JACKSON COUNTY, 1966-67 Resident Total Total Grades Pupils Assessed School District Enrolled in ADA Valuation Tax Levy R-1 Fort Osage K-12 3,019.2 $ 14,374,740 $3.89 R-IV Blue Springs K-12 2,096.8 11,310,791 3.99 R-V Grain Valley K-12 491.0 2,474,980 3.99 R-VI Oak Grove K-12 613.7 3,465,760 3.84 R-VII Lee's Summit K-12 4,416.4 37,434,698 3.85 C-1 Hickman Mills K-12 11,400.1 58,409,700 4.50 C-2 Raytown K-12 14,151.0 79,439,800 3.85 C-4 Grandview K-12 4,169.1 30,245,000 3.70 C-6 Lone Jack 1-12 248.4 1,522,235 4.35 30 Independence K-12 13,508,9 69,550,000 3.95 33 Kansas City K-12 65,323,6 355,104,388 3.15 58 Center K-12 4,996.6 53,967,600 3.40 14 Courtney K-8 143.7 2,398,895 2.99 15 Pleasant Valley K-8 10,8 28,324,820 0.20 SOURCE: Compiled from records at the State Department of Education. 72 In a paper prepared for the Great Plains in many of our states that provide School District Organization Project, Levine funds to local school districts in such and Havighurst examined metropolitan devel- a way as to favor suburban school opment in the Great Plains States and dis- districts over central city districts cussed major problems associated with met- which face the most difficult educa- ropolitan development. Then they presented tional problems and hence have the these suggestions for school district organ- greatest need for additional state aid. ization in the metropolitan area: 3. Initiate and implement programs In accordance with the need to con- to reduce social-class stratification duct certain educational functions on a as well as racial and ethnic segrega- metropolitan area-wide basis in order tion in the schools of the metropolitan to solve the critical emerging problems area. of metropolitan society, officially des- 4. Ensure that teachers and admin- ignated metropolitan intermediate dis- istrators in predominantly low-income tricts should be formed which should schools are paid at least as much as have the authority to perform the fol- or more than their colleagues in pre- lowing functions for semi-independent dominantly middle-income schools, member school districts in the metro- and otherwise actto improve the politan areas of Iowa, Missouri, Ne- quality of the instructional staff in braska, and South Dakota: schools serving large numbers of stu- 1. Represent and act on behalfof dents from low-income families. member districts in working with other 5. Employ specialized personnel areawide and multi-jurisdictional or- and develop and sponsor instructional ganizations and institutions such as projects designed to make school cur- metropolitan planning commissions, ricula more challenging for students highway departments, park and recrea- in all parts of the metropolitan area tion agencies, social welfare depart- and more relevant for helping them ments, urban renewal departments, solve problems which are of immedi- universities,and state employment ate concern to modern youth. units to achieve comprehensive planning and action aimed at developing 6. Develop and implement projects the human and physical resourcesof to introduce and provide instruction the metropolitan area. related to the improvement of human and intergroup relations in classrooms 2. Raise a portion of revenues for throughout the metropolitan area. public education through an areawide tax set at a level high enough to en- 7. Collectareawideeducational sure that realistic sumsof money statistics and develop improved meas- are available for highquality educa- ures to assess the qualityof the schools tional programs for every boy and girl and determine how well they are inthe metropolitan area and that functioning. 3 local communities or member districts are not unableto provide adequate educational opportunities due to special 3. Daniel U. Levine and Robert J. Havig- difficultiesthey may encounter in hurst, "Emerging Urban Problems and Their obtaining revenues to operatetheir Significance for School District Organization schools. At the very least,therefore, in the Great Plains States", PLANNING FOR a metropolitan taxingauthority for SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION, The education would be expected to reverse Great Plains School Organization Project, the inequitable pattern which now exists Lincoln, Nebraska, 1968, pp. 167 and 168.

73 REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND intermediate districts. However, many small LOCAL SCHOOL UNITS ARE and ineffective districts would continue. The RECOMMENDED plan would not aid in solving the problems of the large city school system and the Several alternative patterns for the or- suburban school districts. ganization of public education in Missouri These methods plus various variations and were considered during the course of this combinations were examined, applied, and study. The first, and more traditional ap- evaluated. All were rejected, as none was proach, was to combine some of the smallest acceptable on a statewide basis. The need districts to form units which would satisfy was for a plan which would beeffective in the minimum enrollments and other require- the large cities, in the suburban communi- ments described in the Criteria for School ties,in the sparsely settled areas, and in District Organization,as adopted by the the diverse situations throughout the state. MissouriSchoolDistrictReorganization Commission. This method would have increased the size of many local districts and, to some degree, reduced the disparity THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION in the ability to support schools in the state. However, it left many districts with limited enrollments which would permit only mar- A plan of regional school districts plus ginal programs and give little opportunity adequate local school units was developed. to employ or make efficient use of special- It provides for school units of adequate size ized personnel. Moreover, it offered no solu- to provide good educational programs; it tions to the problems besetting public edu- achieves a substantial equity in school sup- cation in the metropolitan areas. Clearly, pert;it keeps the operation of the schools a more imaginative proposal was in order. under the control of a local board; and it gives the framework whereby vocational Another approach to school reorganization and special education can be made available was to abolish the existing schooldistricts throughout the state. It is recommended as and recreate a single district to serve each the most promising method of providing equal county. This proposal had some advantages. access toeducational opportunity for all Almost without exception,the new units children. would satisfy the minimum requirements of The distinctive characteristics of the plan the "Criteria" adopted by the Commission. will be presented. This will be followed with Although this method would move toward a specific application of the plan to Missouri. fiscalequalization,county units varying Regional school districts embracing sev- greatly in size and ability to support educa- eral counties are proposed. Each regional tional services would be created. This alter- district would include several local school native would offer little assistance in solving units. Regional school districts and local the problems in the metropolitan areas and school units would be governed by elected in the large city school systems. boards. The duties and responsibilities al- Serious consideration was given to a located to the two types of boards should be plan which would require all elementary carefully delineated.Itisessential that school districts to merge with high school that General Assembly define the duties and districts and then establish intermediate dis- responsibilities of each board. The early tricts to supplement the services which could controversy in Missouri between the township be provided by the enlarged high school and subdistrict boards due to overlapping districts. Under this arrangement, all prop- responsibilities emphasizes the importance erty in the state would be taxed to support of clearly delineating the powers allocated elementary and secondary school education. to the local school unit and to the regional Educational programs and services in the school district. Table 17 presents a pro- smaller districts could be expanded by the posed division of responsibilities.

74 TABLE 17

RESPONSIBILITIES ALLOCATED TO REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND LOCAL SCHOOL UNIT

Regional Local School School Activity District Unit

I. The Instructional Program A. Instructional Staff 1. Salary schedule and fringe benefits X 2. Recruitment and selection of teachers and administrators 3. Placement 4. Tenure 5. Dismissal 6. Payment of salaries X 7. Inservice education X 8. Supervision of instruction B. Instructional Supplies 1. Textbooks 2. Library books 3. Classroom supplies 4. Equipment X 5. Audio-visual X C. Curriculum and Course of Study 1. Teaching methods X 2. Experimental programs X X 3. Extracurricular activities X 4. Curricular innovations X X 5. Graduation requirements X 6. Course of study beyond state requirements X D. Ancillary Instructional Services 1. Secretarial selection 2. Libraries 3. Teacher aides 4. Radio and television X E. Pupil Personnel Services 1. Guidance, psychological 2. Attendance, census 3. Health service 4. Food service 5. Transportation X

75 TABLE 17 (Continued)

Regional Local School School Activity District Unit

F. Compensatory Education 1. Mental retardation 2. Orthopedically handicapped 3. Blind 4. Emotionally disturbed 5. Remedial reading 6. Speech correction 7. Educational deprivation G. Vocational Education 1. Vocational-technical schools x 2. Post-secondary education x 3. Vocational programs in high schools x

II. Administration A. Board Activities 1. Area-wide policy X 2. Planning X X 3. Population research and projection X 4. Evaluation X X 5. Adjustments on local school unit boundaries X X 6. Appointment of advisory groups X X 7. Setting school attendance area within local school units X 8. Selection of local school unit superintendent X 9. Selection of regional district superintendent X B. Business and Finance 1. Budget preparation X X 2. Site selection and purchase X X 3. Outside use of schools X 4. Purchasing and supply 5 Accounting 6. Budget control 7. Auditing 8. Custodial services 9. Taxing for schools 10. Building repair and maintenance 11. School construction 12. School bonding

76 The regional school district would be thedistribution of assessed valuation by responsible for levying a uniform tax for school attendance areas within the cities. education throughout the region and distrib- Therefore, it is impossible to use wealth uting such tax money to the boards of local asa criterion for partitioning the cities school units. Other major duties would in- into local school units. Since most of the clude the constructing of all school buildings; citizens in some neighborhoods within the operating vocational education and special cities live in government housing, there is education programs; negotiating with teachers little taxable wealth to support schools in for salaries and fringe benefits; adjusting the areas of highest density of population. boundaries between local school units as A compromise which takes into account needed; and long-range planning for educa- the two conflicting points of view is pro- tion. The boards in the local school units posed, It is recommended that the major would have responsibility for the selection taxing power shall be centered in the re- and assignment of teachers and administra- gional school district and that only limited tors; determination of the quality and scope taxing authority shall be granted to local of the educational program; and the direc- school units. It is proposed that the board tion of all pupil personnel services. The in any local school unit shall not levy a board of the regional school district should tax which exceeds 10 per cent of the levy performitsfunction only after adequate made by the board of education of the regional consultation with the boards of local school school district in which the local school units. unit is located. There is some doubt whether In some instances, the two educational authority to levy taxes for school purposes agencies would have a shared responsibility can be granted to both the regional school for board function or would be involved in district and the local school unit under the different aspects of the same function. For present Constitution. It is suggested that the example, local and regional boards would be General Assembly provide for such taxing involved in developing budgets. The local powers by legislation or through constitu- board would generate a budget based on its tional amendment. best estimate of needs and available re- It may be useful to define and interpret sources in the local school unit whereas the organization, operation, and relationships the regional board would focus primarily on of the two proposed educational agencies in establishing a regional tax levy. Also, the greater detail. "Regional school district" regional board would operate vocational and means the corporate body established in special education programs. accordance with the guidelines presented One feature of this plan which is certain herein; "local school unit" means the corpo- to provoke controversy is the granting of rate unit which is charged with primary major taxing power to the regional board operationof educationalservicesat the of education. Many will insist that local community level. All local school units within initiativecanbeencouragedand local the geographical boundaries of the regional autonomy preservedifsubstantial taxing school district shall be considered a corpo- authority resides with local school units. rate part of the regional school district. This argument is countered by those who observe that wealth and educational needs arerarelydistributedevenlywithin a THE LOCAL SCHOOL UNIT region.Therefore,localtaxing authority generates disparity in educational oppor- The suggested organizational pattern for tunity. the local school unit is as follows: Providing substantial taxing authority in local school units would create a major prob- 1. The board of each local school unit lem inthe metropolitan areas where a shallconsist of nine(9) members, decentralization of existing school districts who shall be nominated by petition of is needed. The tax records do not reveal fifty (50) freeholders from the area of

77 the local school unit and elected at accessible to all school buildings in the large at a popular, nonpartisan elec- local school unit. tion. The term of office of local school board members shall be six (6) years; 9. Local school units through the vehicle provided, that the terms of the mem- of advisory committees shall partici- bers of the first board of education in pate in the development and determina- each localschool unit shall be as tion of the policies and procedures follows: which guide regional school district 1. The three (3) candidates who receive programs and operations. the highest number of votes shall be 10. When the personnel of the regional elected for six (6) years; the three (3) school district work in a local school candidates who receive the next highest unit they shall do so in the framework number of votes shall be elected for of local school unit policies and under four(4)years;and the three(3) the supervision of local school unit candidates who receive the next highest administration. number of votes shall be electedfor two (2) years. THE REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 2. The board of the localschool unit shall hold regular meetings atleast twelve (12) times each year. The following organizationalpattern is proposed for the regional schooldistrict: 3. The board of the local schoolunit shall approve a written set of policies 1. The regional school districtshall have for the operation of the board and the a board of educationof twelve (12) members, elected at large at a popular staff of the local school unit. nonpartisan election. One or more 4. The board of the local schoolunitshall candidates for each board position operate the schools in the unit. shall be nominated at a joint meeting of the board members of all local school 5. The board of the localschool unit units within the regional schooldistrict. shall determine the manner inwhich Additional candidates may be nominated school buildings will be used, the grades by petition of fifty (50)freeholders. to be allocated to eachbuilding, and No member of a board of anylocal establish the school attendance bound- school unit and no person employed aries. by any regional school district orlocal school unit shall serve as amember 6. The board of the localschool unit of the board of education of a regional shall have the authority toselect and school district. The term of officeof purchase books, supplies, and equip- regional school district board mem- ment for the operation of theschool bers shall be six (6) years, andshall system. be staggered so that four (4)members are elected every two(2) years. 7. The board of the localschool unit shall have the authority to employand dis- 2. The board of education of theregional charge the personnel of the localschool school district shall hold regular meet- unit. It shall set the standardsof em- ings at least twelve (12) timesduring ployment and the conditions of work. each year. 8. The administrative officeof the local 3. The board of educationof the regional schoolunitshall be appropriately school district shall approve awritten located by the board so as to beeasily set of policies for the operationof the

78 board and the staff of the regional At least once in every ten years the school district. State Board of Education shall evaluate the adequacy of the regional district organiza- 4. The board of education of the regional tion and report its findings, together with school district shall have responsibility any recommended changes on district bound- for determining its annual budget and aries or organization, to the General As- certifying the necessary tax levy. Pre- sembly. Boundaries between regional school vious to adopting the budget and certi- districts may be adjusted by agreement be- fying the tax levy, the proposed budget tween the boards of education of the regional and tax levy shall be presented at a school districts affected provided such change meeting of the board members of the of boundaries are approved by the State Board local school units. of Education. Boundaries between local school units may be adjusted by their regional 5. The board of education of the regional board of education, provided such change of school district, as a board of direc- boundaries is approved by the State Board tors of a public corporatioa, shall have of Education. the authority to hold property in its name, bond itself for capital outlay, and levy taxes for debt retirement THE RECOMMENDED PLAN OF REGIONAL and operation. SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND LOCAL SCHOOL UNITS IS APPLIED TO MISSOURI 6. State funds shall be distributed to the regional school district in the same The development of a statewide plan of manner and proportionate amount as regional school districts and local school now applies to its constituent local units became the major assignment of the staff during the latter weeks of the project. school units. Various groupings and arrangements were 7. The board of education of the regional formulated, tested, revised, and reevaluated. schooldistrictshalldistribute the The final plan, as proposed in this report, funds to the local school units on a represents the best judgment of the many per joupil basis. participants in the reorganization project. 8. The board of education of the regional school district shall have the authority THE DESIGNATION OF THE REGIONS to employ and discharge the personnel of the regional school district. It shall Numerous proposals for regional school set the standards of employment and districts were investigated. Consideration the conditions of work. The superinten- was given to the 15 junior college districts dent and staff shall hold qualifications as proposed in the report of the Missouri at least equal to those held by compara- Commission on Higher Education. 4The ble personnel in local school units. plan of six vocational educational administra- tivedistricts, as proposed in the recent 9. The office of the regional school dis- study of vocational-technical education to trict shall be appropriately located so as to be easily accessible to all local school units in the regional school district. 4. Max S.Smith, Directo r,FINAL 10. The regional schcol district shall be REPORT MISSOURI PUBLIC JUNIOR COL- the regular channel of communication LEGE STUDY, Missouri Commission on between the State Department of Edu- Higher Education, Jefferson City, Missouri, cation and the local school units. 1968.

79 serve Missouri, was examined. 5 An organ- zen reaction. Basically , the boundaries izational pattern based on the 11 supervisory of the proposed regions werdesigned districts established by the State Department to cknowledge such common factors of Education was seriously considered. In as topography, geography, parkand that arrangement, each supervisory district recreational needs, e c on omic and encompasses four to 14 counties. The pos- social development, forestry, agricul- sibility of dividing the state into anproxi- ture and rural similarity. A total of mately equal regions based upon school popu- eighteen regions were tentatively pro- lation was studied. posed, exclusive of the metropolitan After thorough analysis of various meth- areas of Kansas City and St. Louis. ods, the regional planning areas which have The boundary proposals resolved been established since the passage of the through this process served as the enabling legislationof the 1967 General base for scheduling of public hearings Assembly (Chapter 251, RSMo 1967 Supple- throughout the state. They also served ment) were accepted as the general basis as the basis for discussion relative for the proposed regional school districts. to possible alternative regional delin- The Department of Community Affairs was eation more acceptable to residents given specific responsibilitto assist in the of a region. These questions were creation of regional plannh g commissions. discussedin more detail at public The Department alsoassists established informational meetings and with local commissions in the preparation of bylaws, public officials. the selection of staff and consultants, the The public hearings were sched- development of comprehensive plans, and the uled immediately following final delin- implementation of all or parts of the plan. eation of regions by the State Planning The planning and purpose of these regions Agency. The first was held October 7, are described in a recent bulletin of the 1966 and the concluding public hearing Department of Community Affairs in this held April 11, 1967. The proceedings manner: of each public hearing were tran- scribed and maintained as public rec- The first task prior to scheduling ord for future reference. The State public hearings was delineation of the Planning Agency also reviewed and regions of the state. The Department analyzed these proceedings to evalu- of Community Affairs as the official ate viewpoints expressed by individuals State Planning Agency, concluded it attending the public hearings. This in- would be most beneficial to involve formation assisted the agency in devel- state agencies, institutions of higher oping alternate solutions to regional learning, state and local elected of- delineation. ficials, civic organizations, and inter- Theregionsrequesting further ested individuals in the regional bound- background on regional planning or ary delineation process. delineation of their region may obtain The viewpoints of this 3omposite additional information from the State group were analyzed and synthesized Agency. The agency staff meets indi- to evolve a tentative regional district vidually with public officials, attends structure for the state upon which to civic meetings and provides back- schedule public hearings to obtain citi- ground information to interested individuals. The informational meetings are 5. J.ChesterSwanson,Director,A scheduled at the request of the govern- GATEWAY TO HIGHER ECONOMIC LEVELS, mental units of a region to provide Field Service Center, School of Education, more detailed background than that University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, Cali- obtained at a public hearing. These fornia, 1966. meetings do not have theofficial

80 stature of public hearings, since the establishment of objectives provide the statute requires only one public hear- ground rules for developing and coming. The informational meetings are pleting a comprehensive plan for a designed to obtain maximum publiu region. As each plan element is con- discussion to assure harmonious ac- cluded it is reviewed with the various ceptance of bcmdaries established for technical committees. The housing ele- a region. ment study, for instance, is reviewed The submission of consenting res- by the various sub-committees such olutions by governmental units is the as transportation, economic develop- next phase in creation of a regional ment, welfare and education to assure planning commission. The resolutions it is in agreement with their phase may trequested by governmental of planning. units from the State Agency following The planning element is then final- a public hearing, or after scheduled ized by the technical staff for ac- informItional meetings following a ceptance by the commission as part public hearing. The consenting reso- of the comprehensive plan. This pro- lutions are filed with the State Agency. cedure is followed with each individual Submission of consenting resolu- element of the comprehensive plan. tions is the final step toward creation The public and private sector of the of a regional planning commission. economy of the region is also in- At least 51% of the population of the volved in review of the individual plan governing units within the proposed elements. region must register consent to be The same procedure is used when designated by the Governor as a re- all elements are finally united to con- gional planning commission. stitute the total comprehensive plan. Currently this consenting figure The commission members, public and has been nearer the 90% figure. The private sector review the plan for con- Department prefers the higher figure tent and purpose. This is done through to assure harmonious planning activity public meetings, informational publi- in the future, and to involve the total cations, and individual consultation. area in developing the regional com- The finalized plan with modifications prehensive plan. proposed in the review process be- The final establishment involves comes the comprehensive plan for the formal or informal dedication of the region. region by the Governor and issuance The task of implementing the plan of a proclamation. The Department will be time-consuming and long-range of Community Affairs assists the re- in nature. The commission staff will gion to make formal or informal dedi- develop a priority list of projects for cation ceremony arrangements. Local the commission to review and approve. officials are involved in making ar- These projects and programs are the rangements for public dedications and means whereby the commission exe- coordinating local activities. Dedica- cutes its responsibility of implement- tions to date, have been of large public ing the comprehensive plan to achieve ceremony type and informal signing of the proposed goals and objectives of the proclamations in the Governor's Of- region. fice. The method selected is deter- The commission will be required mined by local repre3entatives of the to determine what local, state, federal proposed region. or private funds are available for projectand program development. They must decide on whether staff or The defining of the goals of the consultants will be employed. The com- region,inventory of resources and mission staff must develop a scope of

81 service when consultants are em- remains in harmony with the economic, ployed. The completion of these ad- socialandpoliticalc h an g e sin ministrative staff services enables the Society.6 commission to begin implementation of parts, or all of the plan. The commission will not find their 6. Departmentof Community Affairs, duties ended with development and im- "Program Sequence Method for Formation plementation of the comprehensive and Operation of Regional PlanningCom- plan. The successful development and missions", MISSOURI COMMENTARY,Vol- effectiveness of a plan will depend on ume 1, Number 2,February 1968, Jefferson continual review to assure that it City, Missouri.

CLARK SCHUYLER SCOTLAND NARRISON MERCER PUTNAM NORTHEAST FIGURE X SULLIVAN 17 REGIONAL PLANNING sioNDY LEWIS GREEN HLLS ANDREW OAVIESS AREAS FOR MISSOURI

CENALS 5 M ACON ABCD

)CHARITON MONROE SUCHANAsi CARHOLL PLATTE PASSOUR1 VALLEY

KANCaCI AUDRAIN EWES HOWARD Soon LINCOLN ONT- LAFAYETTE GONERy

PETTIS 14 EMMEN It CNARLES

CITY OF NONITEAU GASCO- ST. LOUIS NADE FRANKLIN ST. LOUIS

MILLEN NAMES CRAWFORD ST. CLAIR CAMDEN

AMNON./ WEST CENTRAL PULASKI

WASHINGTON LACLEDE

REyNoLos

WAYNE JASPER LAWRENCE OZARK FOOTHILLS IIOLLINGER SOUTH CENTRAL 0 ARKS 4 GATEWAY CANTER STOODAND 00USLAS HOWELL NEWTON 9 SUTLEA OPEOON EW RIPLEY OZARK MADRID MC DONALD

PENISCOT

82 FIGURE XI

RECOMMENDED REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS LNICALSCHOOL UMTS MISSOURI

A. Indffl.1411,NaIrsafil.

Wood Sciri Organ llonlarks Lscal Simi Lai 114.14fies Com, twombrin rr- Sclosi Mtn! ..Cubiratine Insymr1

Omar d HAI Stalks sal Seems l'aiwniry Miasmas

11. O. 11. agAC...No .1. I

rws .1 "C1.6.0 MN,

83 Figure X presents the boundaries of the The work of Hugh Denney, a staff member 20 regional planning areas and shows the in Regional and Community Affairs at the counties included in each. They have been University of Missouri, with the demographic establishedtoutilizethe human, social, factors in Missouri proved to be very useful. economic, and physical resources of each He relates the development of centers of region to the maximum potential. They are population concentration to changes in the bringing the people of the region together speed of transportation and the resulting to work in various areas such as transporta- growth pattern for schools in this manner: tion facilities, park and recreational programs, and economic and socialdevelop- PATTERNS OF GROWTH: ments. It makes good sense to add education to the areas of regional concern. Thus the 20 regional planning areas have been selec- Up to 1820 ted as the nucleus for developing 20 proposed 3-4 miles, or one hour's walking time regional school districts which are presented by man and/or horse. (1 1/2 to 3 miles in Figure XI. one hour's walking time forsmall The 20 regional school districts differ children.) somewhat from the 20 regional planning areas, as a comparison of FiguresX and XI 1820-1900 reveals. Ray County has been transferred 6-8 miles along steamboat or railroad from the Kansas City Metropolitan Region routes, but 3-4 mile pattern continued tothe Missouri Valley Region; Franklin perpendicular to the routes. County from the East-West Gateway Region to the Meramec Region. The two counties have 1900-1920 not experienced sufficient suburban develop- Shifting from 4 to 8 miles with intro- ment to be included in the metropolitan areas. duction of the automobile, but before The boundaries of the 20 regional school all-weather roads. districts coincide with the boundaries of the local school units rather than following the 1920-1935 county boundaries. Figure XI presents the Pattern shifting from 8 to 16 miles boundaries of both the proposed 20 regional with the nationwide improvement in school districts and the proposed 133 local rural roads and highway system. school units. 1935-1956 Shifting from 16 to 32 miles with rapid THE DESIGNATION OF THE LOCAL UNITS development of farm-to-market roads and improved automobiles. A major concern of the staff was the establishment of local school units with ade- 1956- quate pupils and wealth to provide a good In sparsely settled agriculture areas educational program. The Criteria for School a shift from the 32-mile to the64-mile District Organization,asadopted by the centers is in process. MissouriSchoolDistrictReorganization Commission, provided the basis for estab- GROWTH PATTERNS FOR SCHOOLS: .... lishing acceptable local school units. How- ever, there are many waysin which the present 786 school districts can be combined 1. Up to 1900 and each method could produce local school School districts tended between 2 x 2- units which conform to the "Criteria". Thus mile square patterns up to 3 x 3-mile the application of the "Criteria" to the exist- square patterns. This was the pattern ing school district structure became a long until the coming of all-weather roads and difficult task. and school buses.

84 2. 1900-1940 hour of walking time by man and a. Secondary schoolsconceritrated in horse. It was soon learned, however, the township villages. that little children couldn't or wouldn't walk this far or fast, and the eventual b. Consolidation of nearby elementary establishment of common schools in districts into high school districts. 3x 3, 2x 3, or 2x 2 square mile districts resulted across the country. 3. 1940- These districts were in tune with Reorganization and consolidation of the transportation of the times, but high school districts on a larger times change. I can forgive the found- scale due to declining rural popula- ing fathers for not being able to see into tion. the future with its good roads and motor transportation, but I cannot forgive the 4. Emerging Scale: present generation for clinging to their traditional patterns while their chil- a. K-6 16-mile radius in the area dren's education suffers. with lowest population density, 8 Within the very shadow of our miles where enrollment permits. State University, we have only this year finally annexed byrequest one b. 7-932 miles in low density areas; of these pioneer common school dis- 16 miles in Iowa, Missouri, and the tricts. eastern portions of Nebraska and We live in a big world. The fron- South Dakota. tiers of space are without limit, and we accept a trip to the moon asinevi- c. 9-12 A maximum of 32 miles in tableinthe next few years,but all areas, but 16 miles wherever we resist joining with ourneighbors minimum enrollment permits. in the next village to develop school facilities that will enable our children d. 13-14 75 miles in the western to develop their minds and bodies so Plains; 64 miles in Iowa, Missouri, that they, in the next half century, may eastern Nebraska and eastern South make our accomplishments to date Dakota. only stepping stones to the future they will build. e. 13-16128-mile radius. 7 In a paper presented at the Missouri Con- ference of the Great Plains District Organ- From the consideration of these ization Project, Denney emphasizes the need elements of an interrelated nature, we for further school reorganization, as indicated find that today with modern school by the following statements: buses, good roads, declining population, demand for still better schools ...Thus, a township six miles by six and more variety of course offering, with a central gathering point could that in most of rural Missouri there be reached from any corner in one is not enough population and resources to support school systems at the present pattern of eight-mile radius of 7. Hugh Denney, "The Growth Center service. It is anticipated that the 16- Concept and School District Organization", mile pattern will be an economic PLANNING FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT CR- necessity in areas of declining popula- GANIZATION,TheGreatPlains School tion but this can only be achieved if District Organization Project, Lincoln, Ne- the key towns of an area with the braska, 1968, pp. 33 and 34. greatest population of students at the

85 center, and with the best road network upon, they will continue to go tothe city, leading to that center are established and rural areas will continue to lose as the central school of thedistrict. population. I am not unmindful of the historical In view of these trends, the visual- pattern in this state that rural people ization of a pattern of schools large resist joining up with the principal enough to provide the wide variety of cities in their area. It is the same subjects needed by modern, young fundamental agricultural tradition Americans and still close enough not which has stood in the way of bringing to be a burden on those who must be industrial jobs to these areas. But, as transported from the fringes of the a professional person, I feel it my district to the central city is needed. 8 responsibility to caution against continued acceptance of emotionally in- A substantial amount of data regarding the spired country located school facili- present school districts was gathered. Maps ties. The very principle which some showing the school district boundaries were rural people continue to maintain of prepared for each county. The financial data resisting the city is going to cost collected for each district included the as- them a vast amount of money in the sessed valuation, tax levies, and bonded in- years ahead. Today, amodern school debtedness.Enrollments by grades over requires the financial support of not several years were tabulated. Descriptive only rural farm land and residences information, including dates of original con- but the retail, commercial and manu- struction and additions, number and type of facturing base which is associated with facilities,and the general condition, was the larger cities. Further, the train- tabulated for every school building. Meetings ing that the youth require isfunda- with representatives of every school district, mentally a need for adapting to the members of every county board of education, needs of urban living and not rural and the county superintendents provided valu- living. Training for industrial place- able insights regarding unusual conditions in ment is very difficult to conduct in a any district and the preferencesof the resi- rural setting. If we do not view with dents regarding the future status of the dis- alarm the tendency to hold onto Charlie trict. Brown' s towel by rural people in every On the basis of an evaluation of all the grudging adjustment to school prob- available data and in accordance with the lems, we will be guilty of helping them "Criteria" the boundaries of proposed local fall into a trap which has emotional school units were drawn. Consideration was satisfaction but is utterly unrealistic given to the placement of a center of pipula- in the twentieth century. I say these lion as the nucleus for a local school unit. things as a former farm boy who was No county was left without a local school unit, steeped in this kind of thinking in my although this arrangement resulted in a few own youth. Thepeople in the area local school units with less than the minimum covered by this map have a median school enrollment. Except in Kansas City age in excess of41 years. For the and St. Louis, no existing school district past four years, there have been more was divided between twolocal school units. deaths than births and the only possible No doubt there are numerous instances where way of alteringthis situation is to strengthen some key central citiesin the nine-county area so that thereis 8. Hugh Denney, "The Changing Scaleof enough scale to be operational on an Communities and the Need for Continuing efficient basis. If we cannot provide School Readjustments", SUMMARY OF MIS- the kinds of services citizenswant SOURI CONFERENCE, JUNE 26-27,1967, and develop some of the nonworktime Great Plains School District Organization activities that young America insists Project, pp. 31, 36-37.

86 dividing a school district among two or more which may be made such revisions as may local school units would be most desirable. be desirable to create the most effective Making such divisions on an equitable basis school units. would have required far more staff and time The 786 school districts of Missouri have than were available. In Kansas City and St. been grouped into 133 local school units and Louis the high school attendance boundaries 20 regional school districts. The boundaries were utilizedin setting up the proposed of the 20 regional school districts and the decentralized local school units. The Kansas 133 locaJ school units are shown in Figure City school district was divided into four XI and on thestate map folded at the segments, one of which is proposed as a local endofthereport. Maps of the East- school unitand each of the other three West Gateway and the Kansas City Metro- segments is combined with a Jackson County politan Regional School Districts, also found school district to create a local school unit. in the back, supplement the state map by Fourteen local school units are proposed for showing on a larger scale the boundaries of the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County. the present local school districts and of the Three of these local school units are entirely proposed local school units which encompass in the City of St. Louis, four combine seg- the state's two largest metropolitan areas. ments of St. Louis with one or more St. Louis The Appendix has page-size maps of each County districts, and seven are composed of of the other 18 regional school districts, suburban districts only. districts and Thus the local school units proposed in this showing the present local school report should be viewed as a suggested plan the proposed local school units. of organization. They reflect the best judg- The number of local school units per ment of the staff members, taking into account regional school district ranges from 3 to 16. the data which were available to them. They The following list presents data relating to are not perfect nor are their proposed bound- number of local school units, enrollment, aries sacred. The proposed organizational assessed valuation, and bonded indebtedness pattern may well serve as a model from for each regional school district:

No. of Assessed Local Valuation Per Cent Regional School Enrollment Assessed Per Bonded B. I. is School Districts Units Grades 1-12 Valuation. EnrolleeIndebtednessof A. V.

1. East-West Gateway 16 311,458*$4,011,671,407$12,883$202,217,000 5.04

2. Kansas City Metro- 9 178,270 1,589,342,695 8,915 96,090,482 6.04 politan

3. South Central 7 20,665 86,975,602 4,208 5,579,453 6.41 Ozarks

4. Foothills 5 15,235 66,555,124 4,368 41997,930 7.50

5. Green Hills 9 18,275 179,289,776 9,810 6,683,895 3.73

6. Show-Me 3 17,734 135,319,210 7,624 7,401,400 5.46

7. Bootheel 6 39,372 2141299,359 5,442 11,836,900 5,52

8. Missouri Valley 4 11,683 1141716,221 9,819 4,563,950 3.97

87 No. of Assessed Local Valuation Per Cent Regional School Enrollment Assessed Per Bonded B. I. is School Districts Units Grades 1-12 Valuation EnrolleeIndebtednessof A. V. 9. Ozark Gateway 4 28, 546 $183,862,388$ 6,440 $9,561,828 5.20

10. Mark Twain 8 23,876 204,274, 730 8,555 10,904, 500 5. 33

11. ABCD 4 23,541 179,259,600 7,614 11,617,000 6. 48

12. Southeast 7 28,613 201, 465,835 7,041 11, 593,959 5. 75

13. Mid-Missouri 8 43,829 333,147,242 7,601 20, 781, 772 6.23

14. Boons lick 3 7,279 58, 541,561 8,042 3,272,500 5. 58

15. Northwest 5 9,274 119,612,717 12,897 3, 789,000 3.16

16. West Central 4 11,424 86,010,216 7,528 3,939,450 4. 58

17. Northeast 5 8,470 75, 471, 532 8,910 3,347,250 4. 43

18. West 7 16,288 139,656 ,209 8,574 5,187,150 3. 71

19. Southwest 10 54,653 373,566, 548 6,835 21, 394,957 5. 72

20. Meramec 8 36,322 194,480,288 5,354 12, 761,000 6. 56 *Includes the Special District of St. LouisCounty.

Heavy school enrollments are concen- pupil enrolled. The bonded indebtedness is trated in the East-West Gateway andKansas substantial; the ratio of bonded indebtedness City Metropolitan regional schooldistricts; to assessed valuation ranges from 3.16 to in the other 18 regional schooldistricts the 7.50 by regional school districts. The range enrollments range from 7,279 to54,653. The in assessed valuations per enrollee empha- assessed valuation per pupil enrolled ranges sizes the need for a sound system of state from $4,208 to $12,897; the medianassessed aid to achieve equalization in school support valuation is slightly more than$7,600 per throughout the state.

88 Detailed information regarding each pro- indebtedness are also presentedfor each posed local school unit is found in Table 18. proposed local school unit. Theenrollments The present school districts comprising each range from 716 to30,088. The distribution proposed local school unit are listed. Data of the local school units byenrollment is as on enrollment, assessed valuation, andbonded follows:

NUMBER OF LOCAL SCHOOL ENROLLMENT UNITS

Less than 1,000 1

1,000 1,499 19

1,500 1,999 22

2,000 2,499 12

2,500 2,999 12

3,000 3,999 13

4,000 4,999 7

5,000 9,999 19

10,000 14,999 2

15,000 19,999 9

20,000 24,999 11

25,000 29,999 5

30,000 34,000 1

TOTAL 133

The educational programs which can be tional services, especially invocational and offered by the local school units with these special education, provided by theregional enrollments should be substantiallyimproved school districtsshould insure access to over those now availablein most school quality education for all children. districts. These improvements plus the addi-

89 TABLE 18 1967-68 RECOMMENDED LOCAL SCHOOL UNITS FOR MISSOURI AssessedValuation CentPer Adair No. 1 Proposed Local School Unit GradesEnrollment 1-12 3,236 $ 28,347,787ValuationAssessed Enrollee$ 8,760 Per Indebtedness$ Bonded 902,000 of A.V.B.I. is 3.18 R-I Novinger, R-II Brashear, R-III Kirksville. Present Districts AndrewAtchison No. No. 1 1 1,8632,535 26,237,81218,927,110 14,083 7,466 1,076,000 906,000 5.683.45 Avenueboro.R-IR-III Tarkio, Savannah,City. R-II R-IV Rock North Port, Andrew, R-III Fairfax, C-I Fillmore, R-IV West- R-IX Audrain No. 1 6,930 57,483,604 8,294 2,745,992 4.78 Botts,Dam,No.R-INo. Vandalia,2160No. No.90 Hazel,Hedgedale, 18 Washington,95 Bean Hisey, No. R-III Creek,55 R-V No.Hi-Way, Carter, No. 61Sturgeon No. 91Prairie No. 19R-VICedar 57Dye, (Boone), Lea, Sims,Community, Grove, No. No. No. 20R-VI No.87 59Beagles, Jackson, Centralia92Mexico, No. Beaver 17 Barry No. 1 4,681 26,709,305 5,705 901,000 3.44 No.R-VR-I(Boone). Monett,54 78Southwest, Victory,Shell R-IIKnob, No.R-VI Purdy, 69No. Exeter, Mt. 84R-III Sinai,Horner, C-9 Wheaton, No.Golden, No. 71 105 Miner&R-IV No. Eagle 35Jenkins,Cassville, Springs, Rock, BatesBarton No. No. 1 1 2,0483,088 25,369,66117,603,014 8,2158,595 474,000662,000 2.612.69 R-IR-VIR-VR-I Lamar, PierceMiami, Butler, R-II City R-VIIIR-II Liberal, (Lawrence). Ballard, Hume, R-III R-IIIR-IX Golden Adrian,Hudson. City. R-IV Rich Hill, BollingerBenton No. No. 1 1 1,9831,709 20,289,0278,152,955 11,871 4,111 1,013,000 790,459 4.999.69 No.R-IR-II Cole9439 Patton,Shiloh. Feaster, Camp, R-III R-IINo. Leopold, Lincoln,44 Limestone, R-IXR-IV Warsaw,Woodland, No. 93 L.R-X R-VP. Benton, Union, Zalma. BuchananBoone No. No. 1 1 16,84717,332 121,511,47198,018,522 5,6557,212 9,111,0008,056,300 8.227.49 R-IVProvidence,MidwayR-IC-1 Southern, DeKalb,East Heights, Buchanan. No. R-VR-II 54 No. Strawn, Faucett,New 42 Two-MileHaven, Columbia. No. 24 R-IV Prairie,Moore, Hallsville, No.St. Joseph,46 NewC-7 TABLE 18 (Continued) Proposed Local School Unit Enrollment 1967-68 Assessed ValuationAssessed Per Bonded B.I. is CentPer Butler No. 1 Grades 1-12 8,432 $ 34,392,475 Valuation $ 4,078 Enrollee $ 3,058,940 Indebtedness 8.89of A.V. CaneR-IVR-I Poplar Creek,Neelyville, Bluff, No. 34 R-V R-II Oak Qulin, Broseley, Ridge. No. 4R-III Hendrickson, Fisk Rombauer, No. 21 Present Districts CallawayCaldwell No.No. 11 4,2451,927 19,055,01726,703,452 6,2909,888 2,480,480 463,000 9.322.42 R-IC-1Polo, N.Breckenridge,Mirabile, C-4 Callaway, Braymer, No. 42R-II R-II Kingston. R-IV S. Hamilton, Callaway, New York, R-III R-III R-VI Kidder, New Cowgill, Bloom- R-VII Camden No. 1 2,441 26,258,967 10,757 1,395,000 5.31 Muir.field,Creek,R-IIIFulton, No. R-II No.56 StoutCarrington, 59 Brown, lard. No. 5760 MiddleGarden River,Prairie, No. No. 58 71 Camdenton, R-IV Climax Springs, R-V Macks i-4csD Cape Girardeau No. 1 9,943 85,502,153 8,599 5,219,500 6.10 Girardeau,11-I62R-II Campster, Jackson, R-IV R-V No.Nell 65Delta, Holcomb, Abernathy, R-VI No. Oak No.53 Ridge, Oak 72 Pecan Grove, No.Il 63 lmo-ScottGrove, No. Cape City (Scott), R-II Chaffee (Scott), C-7 CarterCarroll No. No. 1 1 1,1842,632 26,574,0854,643,704 10,096 3,922 1,613,000 258,000 5.446.06 R-IR-VIIIKelso Hale,Van (Scott). Norborne, Buren, R-II Tina-Avalon, R-II C-2 East Wakenda, Carter. R-IV R-VII Bogard, Carrollton. R-V Bosworth, Cass No. 1 9,886 51,494,164 5,208 4,059,900 7.88 No.land,R-ITree,Hill, West2535 No. R-IVDayton,Number No. 5line, Number Drexel,61 No.BelleNine, Eight,30R-V No.Plain,Peach Archie, No. 40 Grove, No.8Dover,East R-VIII 62 Lynne, No. Hutchison,No. Cass, 34 16 No. Eight Gunn No. 60 3Mile, No.LoneCity, High- 64 R-II Raymore-Peculiar, R-III Pleasant CharitonCedar No. No. 1 1 1,9682,340 24,531,86514,565,942 12,465 6,224 1,305,200 954,000 5.326.54 R-ILiberty,Harrisonville, Stockton,Northwestern, No. 124 R-II No. Belton, El 09 R-II Dorado Centerview, Brunswick,C-3 Springs.Cass Co. No. R-III 73 Judy,Keytesville, No. 86 Christian No. 1 2,821 14,315,961 5,074 901,000 6.29 No.R-IVOzark,R-IPleyer. 2 Chadwick, St. R-VII Mary, Spokane. R-IINo. Nixa,3 Miller, R-III No. Sparta, 36 Brewer, R-V Clever, No. R-VI63 Salisbury, C-4 Bynumville, No. 1 Menefee, TABLE 18 (Continued) Proposed Local School Unit GradesEnrollment 1-12 1967-68 ValuationAssessed ValuationAssessedEnrollee Per Indebtedness Bonded of A.V.B.I. is CentPer Present Districts Clark No. 1 1,816 $ 13,900,558 $ 7,654 $ 1,094,000 7.87 Upp.No.College,R-I 69 Kahoka, Mt. No.Tabor, C-I16 Highland,No. Wyaconda, 70 Fairmont, No. C-3 21 No.Revere,Jordan, 2 Duncan, No. 3311 No. Luray,Cedar 3 Clay No. 1 29,712 237,697,167 8,000 18,052,582 7.59 Washington,Country,No.R-I Kearney, No. No. 4523 Arley,Walnut No. Grove, 24 Wagy, No. No.46 Little30 Gordon, Shoal,41 Greenwood,38 No. 42 Lunsf,,rd, No. 44 MosbyPrathersville, R-II Smithville, R-VII Mosby, No. 18 No. 40 Excelsior Springs, Clinton No. 1 2,522 21,839,229 8,659 1,203,000 5.50 LawsonNo.R-I 565270 Cameron, MissouriBrick(Ray).Randolph, Monroe, It-II City, No. Lathrop, No. No. 74 58 North53 Clevenger,R-III Liberty, Kansas Plattsburg. No. No. City, 54 67 Carroll, Sharp,R-XII coIND CooperCole No. No. 1 1 2,8276,748 76,847,18127,306,782 11,388 9,659 4,537,000 771,000 2.825.90 way),R-IR-V No.Russellville,Boonville, Eugene, 113 Cedar Jefferson R-II R-II City Blackwater, Jefferson (Callaway).City, C-2 City, HoR-IV lts R-III Bunceton,Summit Centertown, (Calla- R-V DadeCrawford No. 1No. 1 1,3052,610 11,820,50315,690,875 9,0576,011 1,149,000 482,000 7.324.08 R-IPrairieR-I(Howard), Bourbon, Lockwood, Home, No. R-Il 94C-4 Crawford Rocheport Pilot Grove, Co., (Boone). R-III R-I Steelville. New Franklin R-II Dadeville, R-III Everton, R-IV DaviessDallas No. No. 1 1 1,7581,611 16,235,7979,680,830 9,2355,793 534,967636,000 3.296.57 Gallatin,Greenfield.R-I Dallas R-VI Co., Winston, C-11 Tunas. R-VII Tri-County. Coffey, R-II Pattonsburg, R-III Jameson, R-V DeDent Kalb No. No. 1 1 2,2811,637 16,981,79012,228,605 10,373 ,354 227,000649,000 1.345.31 R-IPort,R-0R-IV OakOsborn, C-2 North Hill,Stewartsville. R-IWood, R-II Maysville, GreenR-V Salem. Forest, R-II Union R-III Star, Dent-Phelps, R-VI Fair ON, TABLE 18 (Continued) Proposed Local School Unit GradesEnrollment 1-12 1967-68 ValuationAssessed ValuationAssessedEnrollee Per Indebtedness Bonded of13,1. is CentPer Present Districts DunkDouglas lin No. 11 8,1081,763 $ 39,872,2177,565,467 $ 4,2% 4,917 $ 2,140,000 333,920 4.415.36 C-3R-I Malden,Ava,Senath, R-II C-9R-II Skyline, Southland,Campbell, R-VIII R-IIINo. Plainview. 39 Holcomb, Kennett, C-4 C-2 Clarkton, Rives. Franklin No. 1 10,452 66,714,935 6,382 4,736,000 7,09 SpringStanton,NewRobertsville,R-II PublicBluff, R-XVISchool, R-XIII Strain-Japan, R-III St. Franklin, C-2 R-XI Sullivan, Union, No. R-XII 38 Haven, No. 5Washington, Clair, R-XIV Londe 11,No. R-XV 87 Anaconda, No. 96 GasconadeGentry No. No. 1 1 1,6022,451 18,995,96522,358,573 11,429 9,122 694,000951,000 3.654.25 (Washington).R-IR-1 KingHermann, City, R-IIR-II Owensville. Stanberry, R-III Albany. Hulsey (Washington), No. 6 Pearidge GrundyGreene No,No. 1 30,688 2,320 224,120,27322,542,130 7,4489,716 13,214,0001,669,000 7.375.89 R-VIIR-XIIGrove,R-IIR-II Willard, Laredo,Springfield,Spickard, R-VI R-III Strafford, R-IX R-V Republic,R-IV Trenton. Grundy R-VIIIBillings R-IV Co.,Logan, (Christian).Ash R-VI Grove, R-X Pleasant FairR-V Grove,Walnut View, HenryHarrison No. No. 1 1 2,2023,447 24,640,71034,283,667 11,190 9,945 389,600993,0C3 1.582.89 R-IR-IV Windsor,Cainsville, Gilman City,R-II R-II PleasantR-V S. Ridgeway, View, R-IIIR-VI Shawnee,Martinsville. R-IV Harrison, R-III N. Harrison, Richland,Greenridge,Land,No.R-XIVNorris, 33 No. Montrose,Garland,R-V Clinton, 44No. Blairstown, Deer 61 No. R-XVR-VIII New Creek, 37 Harmony, Deepwater,Curtis, Calhoun.R-IX No. Leesville, No.57 No. PrettyC-10 38 91 Collins, Suprise, UnionR-XII Bob, School,No. Davis,No. 3958S2 HowardHolt No. No. 1 1 1,7401,201 14,041,22316,942,940 14,107 8,069 923,000270,000 6.572.18 R-IIR-IHarrisburgNo. South Glasgow, 10 Possum, Holt, (Boone). R-III R-II No. Fayette,Mound 18 Dudgeon, City, C-2 Myers,R-III No. Craig. 22C-4 Liberty, Armstrong, R-VIII tAl ,,,h,,,41-1.6h:114.1,y,14,1,MIINO.14.,,,,,. 7,, 1, v.+0, to,"1.:""".1 "," "4 ,,,,IVogeViV"Aiii24-.11.,, TABLE 18 (Continued) Proposed Local School Unit GradesEnrollment 1-12 1967-68 ValuationAssessed AssessedValuationEnrollee Per Indebtedness Bonded of A.V.B.I. is CentPer Present Districts Howell No. 1 5,380 $ 24,009,145 $ 4,462 $ 1,743,989 7.26 JunctionGlenwood,Springs,R-I Howell Hill. R-V R-XI Valley, Richards, Fair R-III View, Mountain C-2 Peace View, Valley, R-IV WillowC-12 R-VII West Plains, R-VIII JacksonIron No. No. 1 1 22,756 2,954 103,575,16615,344,335 4,5515,194 9,312,000 364,000 8.992.37 Springs,R-IC-4 SouthIron R-VI Co. Iron, Oak Grove, R-V Grain Valley, No. 14Fort Osage, R-II Arcadia Valley, R-IIINo. Belleview, 30 Independence, R-IV Blue Jackson No. 32 19,80422,048 127,611,63379,439,800 5,787N.A. 11,810,000 9.25 C-6C-4Courtney. Grandview,Lone Jack. R-VII Lee's Summit, C-1 Hickman Mills, Jackson No. 4 17,974 K.C. vgluationplus ofportion of 855,104,38853,967,000 plus portion ofK.C. debt of35,537,0007,552,0005,304,000 N.A. C-2 Raytown, Kansas City Southeast High School. Jackson No. 5 25,112 K.C. valuationPortionplus ofportion of K.C. of 855,104,388 N.A. Portionplus of portion K.C. ofK.C. debt of35,537,000 N.A. KansasHigh School,City PaseoEast No. High High58 Center. School,School, Kansas City SouthwestVan Horn Jackson No. 6 23,839 K.C. valuationplus portion of valuationof 855,104,388 of 28,324,820 N.A. Portion of K.C. 35,537,000debt of N.A. CityHighKansasHigh Northeast School, School,City Westport Kansas HighKansas School, City HighCity Lincoln CentralSchool, No. 15 High PleasantKansas School.School, City Valley. ManualKansas Jasper No. 1 17,834 128,759,518855,104,388 7,219 5,981,828 4.65 WebbC-91R-I CarlCity, Carterville, Junction,R-VIII No.Joplin, R-II61 LaGrange, R-IX Sarcoxie, Carthage, No. R-V 62 R-XIII Marion,Jasper, Avilla, No. R-VII 78 Jefferson No. 1 23,432 99,314,780 4,238 9,489,500 9.55 No.Antonia,GreenR-VIIIR-I 47 Northwest, Grove,Crystal Athena,R-V No.City,Dunklin, R-II79R-IX No, Forest Grandview, 73 Sunrise,R-VI DeSoto. Mill. Festus, C-1 R-III Windsor, R-VII Hillsboro, Jefferson, C-6 R-IVFox, IN Rn 11.. kt TABLE 18 (Continued) 1967-68 ValuationAssessed Bonded CentPer ProposedJohnson Local No. 1School Unit GradesEnrollment 1-12 5,877 $ 36,533,412ValuationAssessed Enrollee$ 6,216 Per Indebtedness$ 1,803,000 of A.V.B.I. is 4.93 R-I Kingsville, R-II Present Districts Farmers, R-III Holden, R-IV LacledeKnox No. No. 1 1 3,9731,182 19,684,37512,879,230 10,896 4,954 657,350937,000 7.283.34 R-IKnobChilhowee, Knox.Conway, Noster, R-V R-X Centerview, Leeton, No. R-VI 1 Valley Warrensburg, Grove. R-VIII R-III Lebanon, C-2 Competition, C-4 Lafayette No. 1 5,220 45,813,571 8,776 3,322,400 7.25 Detherage,No.Gasconade,R-II 6317 Independence.Concordia, Merchant, No. C-5 61 Laclede Dry No.R-V and 24 Lexington,Co., Dusty, Kapp, No. No.2No. Zion, R-VII 6235 Washington,No.6Cook, Odessa, Eldridge, No. R-IX44 coCY% Lawrence No. 1 4,049 24,445,941 6,037 1,475,000 6.03 Aurora,R-IIWellington-Napoleon, Miller, R-IX R-V Marionville. Mt. R-X Vernon, Alma, R-VII C-1 Lafayette Verona, Co. R-VIII LincolnLewisLinn No. No. No. 1 1 1 3,5382,4553,759 17,253,41529,240,25228,249,915 7,7787,9847,027 1,469,0001,309,000 275,000 4.635.021.59 R-VR-I Canton, Silex, R-II C-1 Elsberry,Lewis Co. R-III Troy, R-IV Winfield. Browning, R-II Bucklin, R-IV Meadville, R-V LivingstonMcDonald No. No. 1 1 2,7961,869 28,484,6108,903,367 10,187 4,763 1,175,000 721,000 4.128.09 Marceline,R-IWheeling. McDonaldSouthwest, R-III Co.Brookfield. R-II Chillicothe, R-HI Chula, R-IV MaconMadison No. No.1 1 2,8761,953 23,313,62010,112,674 8,1065,178 1,107,000 545,000 4.755.38 Bevier,R-IR-IHazel Macon, Frederiektown, C-5Grove, NewR-II No. Cambria,LaPlata, 65 R-VI Lundy. C-1C-6Marquand-Zion. Ethel,Elmer, C-8 C-3 Callao, Atlanta, No. C-4 58 MariesMarion No. No. 1 1 1,8265,390 46,189,8888,051,563 4,4098,569 1,843,000 415,000 5.15 R-INo.R-I(Gasconade). Vienna, 58Palmyra, Turner. R-II No. Belle, 41 No.Clear 56 Creek,Brinktown, No. 60R-HI Hannibal, Bland A TABLE 18 (Continued) Proposed Local School Unit GradesEnrollment 1-12 1967-68 AssessedValuation ValuationAssessedEnrollee Per Indebtedness Bonded of A.V.B.I. is CentPer Present Districts MississippiMillerMercer No. No. 1 1No. 1 4,6011,0563,488 $ 12,738,153 28,344,25624,991,281 $12,062 7,1646,160 $ 2,653,4001,502,000 146,000 9.366.011.15 R-IR-IVR-III Eldon,Charleston, N.St. Mercer,Elizabeth, R-II School R-IIR-IV R-V East Ravanna, ofIberia. Prairie.the Osage, R-V Princeton. R-III Tuscumbia, MoniteauMonroe No.No. 11 1,1862,511 13,770,95019,069,984 11,611 7,594 901,000555,000 4.004.72 R-IITipton,R-I(Cooper). Paris, C-1 C-2Jamestown, Holliday, C-2 No. Clarksburg, 62 Sanford, R-VI C-1 Otterville MiddleCalifornia, R-III Highpoint, R-V Latham, R-VI tr) ShelbyMonroe-Marion-Ralls-Montgomery No. 1 No. 1 2,0411,370 18,101,57111,513,563 8,4048,868 1,122,000 895,000 6.197.77 Grove,R-I Wellsville-Middletown,Monroe C-3 Madison, City, R-II No. Marion 94 Duncan's R-II (Marion). Montgomery Bridge. Co. NewMorgan Madrid No. 1No. 1 6,4171,552 43,913,51915,075,593 6,8439,905 2,173,500 384,500 4.952.55 Lilbourn,R-IHiggerson, Stover, R-V R-II No. Matthews, Versailles.37 Gideon. R-VI New Madrid, No. 24Portageville, R-II Risco, R-IH Parma, R-IV NodawayNewton No. No. 1 1 3,8326,795 45,642,04028,596,489 11,9104,208 1,411,0002,385,000 8.343.09 R-VIIR-VR-ISeneca,R-IV W. N. Diamond,Nodaway-Holt. Nodaway,E.C-6 Nodaway, Westview. R-V R-II R-VI Neosho, Maryville, N. Nodaway, R-VI R-IV E. SouthC-123Newton, Nodaway, Jefferson, R-VII OsageOregonOzark No. No. No. 1 1 1 1,4831,4962,126 13,676,4947,211,7669,582,235 4,8624,5079,142 823,000380,000367,000 5.262.688.58 R-I Couch,Chamois, R-II R-II Thayer, Linn, R-IIIR-III Koshkonong,Westphalia. R-IV Alton. Pemiscot No. 1 8,016 35,869,880 4,474 1,908,000 5.31 Gainesville,R-ICaruthersville.R-IVR-I Thornfield, R-VI Lutie. N. Cooter, R-V Pemiscot, R-III Dora, R-IIS. Pemiscot, C-7 Delta,Hayti, No. 18 R-IV Bakersfield, R-V R-III Pemiscot Co., itL ' r .1"41.0..M.^.'t41.E.0:4114S41.' 2.1.TeLS.V.Y-4":94 'VOW &41'2611..rs!!,.rall&ni.' TABLE 18 (Continued) Proposed Local School Unit GradesEnrollment 1-12 1967-68 ValuationAssessed ValuationA ssessedEnrollee Per Indebtedness Bonded of A.V.B.I. is CentPer Present Districts Perry No. 1 1,898 $ 20,689,110 $10,900 $ 948,000 4.58 No.Hager,No. 41 2410 Cashion, Boxdorfer,No.Menfro, 33 Hunt,No. No. No. 47 32 No.26 Wittenberg, Perryville,Crosstown, 39 Wilhelm, No. No. 272148 Union, 40Roth Highland, No. 29 Altenburg, Valley, Pettis No. 1 6,637 52,972,227 7,981 2,276,000 4.29 StripedR-VIR-IBrewerville,Hoffman,No. Sweet Smithton, 49 College, Frohna, Springs, No. No.R-VIII 53 No. 73New R-IV50 30GreenBois-Brule. Fiehler,HighFrame, LaMonte, Ridge, Point, No. R-XII 51 71No. R-V Uniontown,Longtown, Walnut,33 Sunnyside, No. No. 29 7252 Hughesville, Phelps No. 1 5,390 30,642,850 5,685 2,456,000 8.01 No.R-IBranch,Flat, 1335St. No.Macedonia, Tanglenook,No.James, 31 105 Rolla, Bothwell,R-II No. No. No.Newburg, 14 32 36 No.Miller, Strawhun, Georgetown, 200 R-IIINo. Sedalia. 20No. Corinth, 86No. Vida, 54 No. No, 21 40 Edgar Springs, Camp PikePlatte No. No. 1 1 7,1393,611 52,128,55731,424,243 7,3018,702 4,463,0001,976,500 8.566.28 R-IAshley,Pleasant BowlingDearborn, R-X Ridge Bondi.Green, R-II (Maries). Weston,R-II Louisiana, R-III Platte R-III City,Clompton, R-V R-IVPark PulaskiPolk No. No. 1 1 7,9053,095 18,954,680 6,124 968,000 5.10 R-IHope.Humansville, R-V Marion Bolivar, R-II Fair Play, C. Early,R-III R-VI Pleasant Halfway, R-IV RailsPutnam No. No. 1 1 1,1101,135 12,963,86716,12.7,3578,612,621 11,4217,8152,040 336,000154,928914,000 2.455.661.20 land,R-IIR-I R-VUnionville,Dixon, Rails Laquey, Co. R-II R-III Crocker,R-VI W. Waynesville, Putnam. R-III Swedeborg, R-VH Big R-IV Piney. Rich- RayRandolph No. 1 No. 1 2,7954,094 20,617,96532,964,875 7,3768,052 2,378,000 582,000 2.827.21 C-2R-INo.R-VIII Stet,Westran,52Hardin-Central. Higbee,Grimes, R-III R-IV Knoxville, C-1No. Northeast,Yates,55 Brooks. R-XI Moberly, R-V Orrick, Renick, No. R-XIII 37 R-VI Sugar Creek, Richmond, Clark, TABLE 18 (Continued) Proposed Local School Unit GradesEnrollment 1-12 1967-68 ValuationAssessed ValuationAssessedEnrollee Per Indebtedness Bonded of A.V.B.I. is CentPer Present Districts RipleyReynolds No. No. 1 1 2,1861,610 $ 12,232,945 8,444,860 $ 7,598 3,863 $ 704,000511,390 6.065.95 Lesterville,R-INo.R-I Doniphan,25 Spell. No. 29 R-II Corridon-Reynolds. Naylor, R-III Gatewood, R-IV Briar,Centerville, R-II Southern, R-III Bunker, R-IV St. ClairCharles No. No. 1 1 16,758 1,410 121,690,58711,740,265 7,2618,326 10,702,500 172,000 8.801.47 City,R-IIR-V Ft.AppletonSt. No. Zumwalt,Charles, 25 Liberty, City, St.R-III C-1 Charles. No.Francis Roscoe, 76 Burgess,Howell, C-3 Collins, R-IV No. Wentzville,C-478 Union, Lowry St. Francois No. 1 8,562 46,050,230 5,378 2,270,000 4.92 C-2R-VR-IOsceola. Libertyville,Bismarck, N. County, R-VIIR-III No. 3 FlatFarmington, C-1 KnobBlackwell, Lick, River, R-IV Leodwood,No. 66 Busick, Ste.St. Genevieve Louis No. No.1 1 20,722 1,320 plus portion145,910,00015,614,358 11,829 N.A. plus portion of 11,681,0001,457,000 N.A.9.33 R-IXR-IINo.Cleveland 67Ste. Mehlville, Cross Genevieve. High Roads, HancockSchool. R-V CoffmanPlace, 102 (Ste. Bayless, Genevieve). St. Louis St. Louis No. 2 19,324 1,745,163,440valuationof St. Louis ofSt.Portion Louis of N.A. St. Louis debt of LouisPortion debt of St. of40,215,000 N.A. HighSt. Louis School. McKinley High School, St. Louis Roosevelt St. Louis No. 3 19,462 1,745,163,440ofvaluation plusSt. Louis166,005,910 portion of N.A. St. Louisplus debt portion of of 40,215,00012,151,000 N.A. School.101 Affton, Webster Groves, St. Louis Southwest High St.St. Louis Louis No. No. 4 5 12,59519,191 1,745,163,440valuation315,224,929232,806,231 of 25,02712,131 40,215,00014,455,00017,539,000 4.587.53 Brentwood,R-VII Kirkwood, Clayton, R-VIII Ladue, Lindbergh. Maplewood.

lataq 1,21,1.w...04,1W it 13.A' 144.71111 5IA TABLE 18 (Continued) Proposed Local School Unit GradesEnrollment 1-12 1967-68 ValuationAssessed ValuationAssessedEnrollee Per Indebtedness Bonded of A.V.B.I. is CentPer Present Districts St. Louis No. 76 21,93818,75515,109 $221,760,080plus portion215,508,52021,059,220 $10,108 14,264 N.A. plus portion of$16,497,00011,456,0001,805,000 N.A.5.317.43 Wellston,Normandy,R-HI Pattonville, St. LouisUniversity SoldanRitenour. City. High School. St. Louis No. 9 23,442 1,745,166,440valuationof St. LouisPortion ofSt. of Louis N.A. St. Louis debt ofPortion of St. 40,215,000 N.A. St.School. Louis Beaumont High School, St. Louis Sumner High CS) St. Louis No. 10 21,171 1,745,163,440valuation ofPortion of N.A. LouisPortion debt of of St.40,215,000 N.A. St. Louis No. 11 17,005 1,745,163,440valuation148,159,090 ofSt. Louis N.A. Louis debt of40,215,00010,139,000 N.A. Jennings,School.St. Louis VashonRiverview High Gardens, School, St. St. Louis Louis Northwest Central HighHigh St. Louis No. 12 17,455 1,745,163,440valuationofplus St. portion Louis168,197,620 of 9,636 St. Louis debtplus of portion of 14,088,00040,215,000 9.58 School.Hazelwood. St.SalineSt. Louis Louis No. No. No. 1 13 14 22,45819,595 4,288 189,111,180221,759,82042,992,306 10,0269,8749,650 .16,129,00015,870,0001,063,750 2.478.397.27 R-IR-VIR-II Miami,Ferguson, Rockwood, R-II Berkeley, Parkway,Central, Kin R-IVValley loch. Orearville, Park. R-V Malta Bend,Marshall,GreenGrove,No.R-XI R-VII38 Napton, Mound, SulphurNo. Slater. Sweet 62 R-XIINo. Shackelford, Springs, Springs, 100 Elgin, Blackwater, No.R-IX R-XVI No. 53 Jester, Chappell,67 Nelson,No. Sunnyside, R-X 118 C-4Hardeman, ArrowNo. Gilliam, 61 No. Rock, Elm 82 ProposedTABLE 18 Local (Continued) Enrollment 1967-68 Assessed AssessedValuation Per Bonded B.I. is CentPer Schuyler No. 1 School Unit Grades 1-12 1,075 $ Valuation7,526,122 $ 7,001Enrollee $ Indebtedness 42,750 of A.V.0.57 R-I Schuyler. Present Districts ScottScotland No. No. 1 1 5,8741,161 32,108,10912,817,835 11,040 5,466 1,539,000 371,500 4.792.90 R-IIINo,Grove,R-I Memphis,14 Oran, Prospect C-1 R-IV Granger, R-III Grove. Scott Gc.rin, Co.,No. R-V7 R-IV Morley, Rutledge, R-VI R-V Sikeston. Bible N. Barker, No. 8 Spees, StoddardShelbyShannon No. No.No. 1 1 1 6,3561,7841,394 34,191,37819,231,5555,415,615 10,780 5,3793,884 1,423,0001,539,000 285,044 4.168.005.26 R-IVTimber,R-IR-I Eminence, Shelby No. 39Co., MapleR-II C-1 BirchShelby Grove, Tree, Co. No. R-III40 Cotoreva. Winona, No.Richland, 13 R-II Bell City, R-IV Advance, R-VIII 0i-L SullivanStone No. No. 1 1 1,3221,930 13,389,24012,800,571 10,128 6,632 683,000756,000 5.105.90 R-ISprings,R-IPuxico, Green R-V R-XI City, Blue Dexter,R-III Eye. Newton-Harris, R-XIII Bernice, C-2 R-XIV Milan. Bloomfield.Hurley, R-II Galena, R-III Crane, R-IV Reeds TexasTaney No. 1 4,5412,146 19,342,06617,525,270 4,2598,166 1,096,000 924,000 5.675,27 Branson,R-ICreek, Houston,Bradleyville, R-VIII R-V Hollister,R-II Mark Summersville,R-II Twain. Taneyville,R-VI Kirbyville, R-IV R-III Cabool, R-VIIForsyth, R-V Cedar Plato,R-IV Vernon No. 1 3,267 24,810,057 7,595 1,036,000 4.17 GravelArroll,R-ITyrone,R-VI Schell Point,Success, No. City, No.8 CedarR-VII 115 R-II LoneGroveRaymondville, Metz, Oak, (Shannon). R-IV No. Walker, R-VIII122 Murr, Licking,R-V No. Nevada, 133No. 3 No. 4 Stallman, No. 42 Brown Hill, No. 72 WashingtonWarren No. No.1 1 3,4041,700 22,665,53012,190,075 7,1706,658 1,491,000 841,500 6.576.89 Kingston.R-IIIR-IIR-VII Wright Bronaugh, City, R-VIII R-III Warrenton.Sheldon. Potosi, R-VI Valley, R-VII Richmond, No. 14 TABLE 18 (Continued) Proposed Local School Unit GradesEnrollment 1-12 1967-68 ValuationAssessed ValuationAssessedEnrollee Per Indebtedness Bonded of B.I.A.V. is CentPer Present Districts WebsterWayne No. No. 1 1 2,8671,823 $ 13,193,2146,841,140 $ 3,752 4,601 $ 1,137,957 465,600 8.626.80 WhiteNo.R-I Hollow.73 Union Hill, No. 11 Clubb, No. 15 Hiram, No.Clearwater, 16 R-II Greenville, No. 7 Mt. View, 1--1ILC::: WrightWorth No. No. 1 1 3,478 716 13,849,30811,793,960 16,472 3,920 917,500408,000 6.623.46 R-INiangua. Worth,Norwood,Marshfield, R-II Sheridan. R-II Seymour, R-Ill Ford land, R-V NOTE: N.A. indicates figures not available. A.V.B.I. indicates indicates bonded assessed indebtedness. valuation. R-IV Mansfield, R-V Manes. R-II Hartville, R-III Mountain Grove,

; THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE next highest number of votes shall be RECOMMENDED SCHOOL DISTRICT elected for four (4) years; and the REORGANIZATION SHOULD BE four(4)receiving the next highest SCHEDULED OVER A THREE-YEAR number of votes shall be electedfor PERIOD two (2) years. Stronger and more effective educational 3. The responsibilities of theboard in organization in Missouri requires consider- each regional planning districtshall able new as well as corrective actionin be limited to carrying out the process- regard tothe consitutional and statutory es for establishing anapproved plan framework applicable to education. The state- of local school units until such time ments which follow have the purposeof as an approved plan hasbeen estab- recommending to the General Assembly a lished in every regional planning dis- sequential pattern of events which would trict. permit the establishment of the recommended reorbanization plan in an orderly manner. 4. No taxing authority shall be granted The implementation of the plan shouldbe to the regional planning district until scheduled over a three-year period in the such time as an approved plan of local following sequence: school units has been established in every regional planningdistrict and the 1. The 20regional planning districts regional planning districts have been should be established immediately by converted by the General Assembly action of the General Assembly. They into regional school districts. Each would serve only as regional planning regional planning districtshall be districts until a plan of local school financed by legislative appropriation units has been approved in every until reorganization into approved local regional planning district. At that time school units has been achieved. the General Assembly shall convert the 20regional planning districtsinto 5. The board of each regionalplanning regionalschool districtsand their district shall select and employ the boards into boards of education. necessary staff to conductthe process of implementing an approved reorgan- 2. The election of initial boards of the ization program. regional planning districts shall be conducted under supervision of the 6. The board of each regional planning State Board of Education and shall be district shall immediately conduct a in accordance with the procedure for study of the educational conditions and election of 'regional school district needs of the region; consult with school boards'as provided on page 78 of officials and residents of local school thisreport,exceptthatuntilthe districts, the county boards of educa- regional planning board shall become tion, the county superintendents, and theregionalschooldistrict board, the State Department of Education; nominations forthe boardsof the and prepare a plan of local school regional planning districts shall be units for the entire region. The board made solely by petition of fifty (50) may submit the planproposed in this freeholders from the respective re- report, a revision of it, or a com- gional districts. pletely new plan. Within a period of 12 months from the date of the estab- Of the first regional board elected, the lishment of the regional planning dis- four (4) who receive the highest num- trict, the board shall submit the reor- ber of votes shall be elected for six ganization plan for that region to the (6) years; the four (4) receiving the State Board of Education for approval.

102 The State Board of Education shall the revised district organization plan check the plan to make sure that the in any regional planning district fails number of local school units shall not to approve it, a plan of local school exceed the number, as designated in units shall be prepared by the State the reorganization plan approved by Board of Education, in consultation with the Missouri School District Reorgan- the board of the regional planning dis- ization Commission, by more than trict, within a period of six months fifty(50)per cent or by five(5) from the date of the election. In that local school units, whichever is the plan the number of local school units smaller, and that each unit in the pro- shall not exceed the number, as desig- posed plan shall conform to the "Cri- nated in the reorganization plan ap- teria" as accepted by the Missouri proved by the Missouri School Dis- School District Reorganization Com- trict Reorganization Commission, by mission. more than fifty(50) per cent or by After approval of the plan of local five (5) local school units, whichever schoolunits by the State Board of is the smaller. Also, each local school Education, the plan shall be submitted unit shall conform to the "Criteria" to the electors of the school districts as accepted by the Missouri School in the regional planning district.If District Reorganization Commission. approved by a majority of the citizens The plan of localschool units as voting on the proposal, the new plan prepared by the State Board of Educa- of local school units shall be estab- tion in consultation with the board of lished on the date determined by the theregionalplanning district shall General Assembly. be established on the date determined by the General Assembly. 7. If a majority of the citizens voting on the plan of local school units in any 9. The complete statewide plan of local regional planning district fails to ap- school units shall be implemented by prove it,the board of the regional the General Assembly as soon as an planning district shall prepare a re- approved plan of local school units vised plan of local school units, which has been established in every regional must conform to the same require- planning district. The General Assem- ments regarding number of local school bly shall determine the date that the units and "Criteria" for each local regional planning districts become re- schoolunitas applied to the first gional school districts and that local proposed plan. Within a period of one school units become operative. year from the election on the first plan, the board of the regional plan- 10. The proposed schedule for implement- ning district shall submit the revised ing a statewide plan of school district plan to the State Board of Education. reorganization can be summarized as After approval by the State Board of follows: Education, the revised plan of local school units shall be submitted to the 1969 SESSION OF GENERAL ASSEM- electors of the school districts within BLY establish the 20 regional the regional planning district. If ap- planning districts by legislative proved by a majority of the citizens action. voting on the proposal, the new plan of local school units shall be estab- JULY 1, 1970by this date the board lished on the date determined by the of each regional planning district General Assembly. shall have submitted a plan of local school units, approved by the State 8. If a majority of the citizens voting on Board of Education, to the elector-

103 ate of the regional planning district. 1. TAXING LIMITATIONS FOR SCHOOL SUPPORT WHICH ARE FOUND IN JULY 1, 1971by this date, the board THE STATE CONSTITUTION ARE of each regional planning district COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC AND inwhich the electorate rejected SHOULD BE REMOVED. the plan of local school units shall have submitted a revised plan of Article X, section 11 (b) states that local school units, approved by the the tax imposed by school districts State Board of Education, to the formed of cities and towns shall not electorate of the regional planning exceed one dollar on the hundred dol- district. lars assessed valuation, except that in the City of St. Louis the annual rate JANUARY 1, 1972 by this date, the shall not exceed eight-nine cents on State Board of Education, in consul- the hundred dollars assessed valua- tation with the board of each re- tion, arid for all other school districts gional planning district in which the the rate shall not exceed sixty-five electorate rejected the revised plan cents on the hundred dollars assessed of local school units, shall prepare valuation. On January 14, 1966, voters a plan of local school units for such approved a constitutional amendment regions. authorizing school districts formed of cities and towns and the City of St. JULY 1, 1972by this date, the Gen- Louis to set a tax rate not to exceed eral Assembly shall implement the $1.25 on the hundred dollars assessed 20 approved plans of local school valuation without voter approval. The units and shall convert the 20re- wisdom of such specific details in any gional planning districts into 20 constitution can well be questioned. regional school districts. The entire statewide plan of school district 2. UNIFORM PROPERTY ASSESSMENT reorganization shall become opera- PROCEDURES AND POLICIES tive as of July 1, 1972. However, SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED. if the electors in all regional planning districts have approved plans With the creation of regional taxing of local school units by July 1, 1970 units the need for uniform assessing or July 1, 1971, the date for imple- is imperative. menting the entire statewide plan of regional school districts and local 3. ADDITIONAL STATE AID FOR ELE- school units can be correspondingly MENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL advanced from July 1, 1972. EDUCATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED. The property tax, as usedby school districts and other governmental units, is approaching its limits and substantially more revenue is needed by school systems. Upon the implementation of SOME RELATED ACTIONS ARE NEEDED the recommended plan of school dis- WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF trictreorganization, the number of SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION taxing units will be substantially reduced and the variations in the finan- Some supplementary actions are essential cial ability of the new districts will if a good school district reorganization is be much smaller. Thus, it will be to function most successfully. Among the possible to develop an expanded and major ones are the following: moreequitableprogramofstate support. 104 !

4. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TOAMEND 8. THE STA TE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION IF EDUCATION SHOULD EXPAND THE LIMITED TAXING POWER IS TO BE DIVISION HAVING RESPONSIBILITY GRANTED TO THE LOCAL SCHOOL FOR WORKING ON THE STATEWIDE UNITS. PROGRAM OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION. The major local taxing authority forthesupport of elementary and This unit, which must be adequately secondary school education should be staffedand financed,should be an vested in the regional school districts. activeparticipantin developing an adequate system of local school units 5. THE SEPARATE TEACHERRETIRE- in each regional school district. MENT SYSTEMS WILL NEED TOBE COORDINATED. 9. THE ROLE OF THE STATE DEPART- MENT OF EDUCATION WILL NEED Some of the proposed local school TO BE CHANGED. units combine sections of the Kansas City and St. Louis school districts with Upon the implementation of the suburban districts. In such combination statewide plan of school district reor- local school units the present retire- ganization, the number of school units ment benefits of staff members must will be substantially less. The units be protected. will be large enough to employ the professional personnel to develop and 6. SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES MUSTBE operatecomprehensiveeducational MADE IN PRESENT SCHOOL LAWS. programs, Thus, the Departmentwill no longer have toenforce minimum The county boards of education standards in marginal districts and should be abolished as their duties process the mass of reports from the relating to school district reorganiza- multitude of districts. Its major role tion will be performed by the boards can become one of educationalleader- of education of the regional school dis- ship. tricts. The office of county superintendent of schools should be abolished 10. ALTHOUGH THE N ON P UBL I C as there will be noneed for that posi- SCHOOLS HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUD- tion. The duties and activities of the ED IN THIS REORGANIZATION PRO- Special District in St. Louis County JECT, THEY COULD NOT BE IG should be transferred to the boardof NORED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF education of the East-West Gateway THE RECOMMENDED PROGRAM. Regional School District. Only limited data are available 7. THIS STUDY HAS NOTINCLUDED regarding these schools. In 1966-67 the THE HARRIS TEACHERS COLLEGE, 82accreditednonpublic secondary WHICH IS OPERATED BY THE ST. schools enrolled 34,909 students, or LOUIS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. approximately 11.8 per cent of the total secondary school enrollment of No doubt the College serves a useful the state. No comparable data were function. However, it is rather unusual available for the nonpublic elementary to have a school districtoperate a schools.The nonpublic schools are teacher training institution. Thisinsti- currently facing critical problems of tution and its relationships with other financing and staffing so the scope and institutions of higher education need nature of their future development are to be studied before a valid recommen- uncertain. The public school system dation can be formulated. must be ready to accept any and all 105

a students who may wish to enroll. The that it can provide the necessary state- recommended reorganization program wide educational leadership. will make the public school system 2. The regional school district has major better able to respond to any demands responsibility for levying the school made upon it due to any future changes taxes, for operating or directing the inthe nrograms of the nonpublic vocational and special education pro- schools. grams, and for educational planning 11. DURING THE NEXT THREE YEARS, and leadership in the region. OR UNTIL THE DATE SET BY THE 3. The operation of the elementary a.nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE secondary school system will be the ENTIRESTATEWIDE PLAN OF responsibility of the local school unit. SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZA- Thus the decisions relating to the loca- TION TO BECOME OPERATIVE, THE tion of attendance boundaries, the use EXISTING STATUTORY PROVISIONS of school buildings, the organization of SHOULD CONTINUE IN FULL AF- theschool systeminto elementary FECT EXCEPT THAT THE GENERAL schools, junior high schools, and senior ASSEMBLY SHOULD PROVIDE BY high schools, and the selection and LAW THAT ANY PROVISION OF THE assignment of staff members will be LAW NOTWITHSTANDING, ANY AND made by the board of the local school ALL PROPOSALS FOR REORGANIZA- unit. TION, ANNEXATION, CONSOLIDA- TION OR CHANGE OF BOUNDARY The suggested new statutory and constitu- SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE RE- tional provisions should be so structured as SPECTIVE REGIONAL BOARD (OR to permit a great deal of flexibility on the BOARDS IF THE PROPOSED CHANGE part of the regional school district in order SHALL CROSS REGIONAL BOUND- to permit equally valid application to sub- ARIES) AND BY THE STATE BOARD stantially different kinds of situations. OF EDUCATION BEFORE BEING To secure acceptance of the recommended PRESENTED FOR A VOTE OF THE plan of district reorganization by the people PEOPLE IN THE AREAS AFFECTED. of the state will require an extensive program This action is very necessary in of explanation. The plan is new and the first order to permit orderly reorganization reaction to any change in the status quo is to continue while at the same time negative.The distinctivefeatures of the taking every precaution to guarantee regional school districts and the local school that such reorganization does not do units will have to be described in detail. The violence to the region's or the state's serious inadequacies of the present organiza- long range plans for reorganization. tionalpattern must be spelled out. The advantages of the recommended reorganiza- THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE tiongiving every child access to a compre- RECOMMENDED PLAN OF DISTRICT hensive educational program and providing REORGANIZATION WILL REQUIRE forequityinschool support - must be EXTENSIVE COOPERATIVE EFFORT emphsized. The campaign of information will The recommended plan of district reor- requIre the active cooperation of every in- ganization provides the organizational frame- terested group and organization. The State work for making a comprehensive educational Department of Education, the professional program available to every child in the state. organizations, the school board association, The design of the proposed system of state- the colleges and universities, and the Parent- regional school district-local school unit is Teacher Association should accept responsi- simple, as illustrated in the following rela- bilityfor leadership. This reorganization tionships: project has provided the blueprint for a major 1. The state has the responsibility for advance in public education in the state. The developing a sound program of adequate extent and speed with which the program is state aid and of staffing and financing implementedrestswith thecitizensof the State Department of Education so Missouri. 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alm, Kent G.,Director, EDUCATIONAL Conant, James B., THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT FOR NORTH DAKOTA, HIGH SCHOOL, McGraw-Hill Book Com- 1967-1975, The North Dakota Statewide pany, New York, New York, 1967. Study of Education, University of North DakotaPress,GrandForks,North Cunningham, Luvern L., Chairman, REPORT Dakota, 1967. ON THE MERGER ISSUE, Louisville Board of Education and Jefferson County Board Barr, W. Montfort,HaroldH.Church, of Education, Louisville, Kentucky, 1966. Maurice E. Stapley, and Marion A. Mc- Ghehey, SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGAN- Cushman, M. L., "The Questionable Theory IZATION IN INDIANA, Indiana University, of Local School District Organization", Bloomington, Indiana, 1959. THF COLLEGE OF EDUCATION RECORD, Volume XLVIII, Number 2, November Bundy, McGeorge, RECONNECTION FOR 1962. University of North Dakota, Grand LEARNING, A COMMUNITY SCHOOL Forks, North Dakota, 1962. SYSTEM FOR NEW YORK CITY, Mayor's Advisory Panel on Decentralization of Denney,Hugh, A POSITION PAPER ON the New York City Schools, New York, SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION FOR New York, 1967. THE GREAT PLAINS SCHOOL REOR- GANIZATION PROJECT. The Great Plains Bureau of Field Studies and Surveys, EDU- School District Organization Project, Lin- CATION 1967, University of Minnesota, coln, Nebraska, 1967. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1967. Denney, Hugh, THE CHANGING SCALE OF Byham, Steven H., A STUDY OF CERTAIN COMMUNITIES AND THE NEED FOR SMALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS MAINTAIN- C ON T IN UIN G SCHOOL READJUST- ING HIGH SCHOOLS IN MISSOURI, Gradu- MENTS, The Great Plains SchoolDistrict ateSchool,UniversityofMissouri, Organization Project, Lincoln, Nebraska, Columbia, Missouri, 1955. 1967. Campbell, Rex R., POPULATION AND Department of Community Affairs, "Program HIGHER EDUCATION IN MISSOURI, Uni- SequenceMethodforFormation and versity of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, Operation of Regional Planning Commis- 1967. sions",MISSOURI COMMENTARY, Volume1,Number 2,Department of Coleman, James S., EQUALITY OF EDUCA- Community Affairs, Jefferson City, Mis- TIONAL OPPORTUNITY, United States souri, 1968. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1966. Dornian,OttoE.and Robert J.Keller, COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATIONAL SUR- Commission on School District Reorganiza- VEY OF KANSAS, Research Department, tion, SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION, KansasLegislativeCouncil,Topeka, American Association of School Admin- Kansas, 1960. istrators, Washington, D.C., 1958. Fitzwater, C.0., SCHOOL DISTRICT RE- Committee on Educational Finance, FINAN- ORGANIZATION, POLICIES AND PROCE- CIAL STATUS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DURES,UnitedStates Department of Research Division,National Education Health, Education, and Welfare, Office Association, Washington, D.C., 1968. of Education, Washington, D.C., 1957.

107 Fitzwater, C. 0., STATE SCHOOL SYSTEM ness and PublicAdministration, Univer- DEVELO PM EN T:PATTERNS AND sityof Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, TRENDS, Education Commission of the 1.968. States, Denver, Colorado, 1968. Purdy,Ralph D.,Director, A MASTER ORGAN- Goldenberg,H.Carl, REPORT OF THE PLAN FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT ROYAL COMMISSION ON METROPOLI- IZATION IN OHIO, The State Department TAN TORONTO, Ontario Executive of Education, Columbus, Ohio, 1966. Council, Toronto, Canada, 1965. Purdy, Ralph D., Director,PLANNING FOR The Goodwin,Thelma P.,Editor,OFFICIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION, MANUAL, STATE OF MISSOURI, 1967- Great Plains School District Organiza- 1968, Von Hoffman Companies, Jefferson tion Project, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1968. City, Missouri, 1968. Purdy, Ralph D., "Problems, Issues,and Green, Harold E., A COMPARISONOF Trends in School District Organization," S C HO 0 LDISTRICTSINMISSOURI A paper presented at the CentralRegional BEFORE AND AFTER REORGANIZA- Conference, The National Associationof TION, Graduate School,University of State Boards of Education andthe Iowa Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 1953. State Board of Education, April 19,1967. Harris, Chester W., Editor, ENCYCLOPEDIA Purdy, Ralph D., Director, SUMMARYOF OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH,The MISSOURI CONFERENCE, JEFFERSON Macmillan Company, New York, New York, CITY, MISSOURI, The Great PlainsSchool Lincoln, 1960. District Organization Project, Nebraska, 1967. Kottmeyer,William, A TALE OF TWO PAYING CITIES,A BLUEPRINT OF EDUCA- Research and Policy Committee, TIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN THE ST. FOR BETTER SCHOOLS, TheCommittee LOUIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, St. Louis Public for Economic Development, NewYork, Schools, St. Louis, Missouri, 1968. New York, 1960. Kottmeyer,William, HARD TIMES AND Research Report 1967 R19, ESTIMATES GREAT EXPECTATIONS, 1967, St. Louis OF SCHOOL STATISTICS,R.dsearch Divi- Public Schools, St. Louis, Missouri, 1967. sion,NationalEducation Association, Washington, D.C., 1967. Missouri Public Expenditure Survey, MIS- SOURI PROPERTY TAX RATES, 1966 and Research Report 1968 R1, RANKINGS OF 1967, Missouri Public Expenditure Survey, THE STATES, 1968, Research Division, Jefferson City, Missouri, 1967. National Education Association, Washing- ton, D.C., 1968. Mittler, Eli F., A PROPOSED REORGANIZA- TION FOR EDUCATION IN AN AREA Smith, Max S., Director, FINALREPORT INCLUDING FIVE EAST - CENTRAL MISSOURI PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE Higher COUNTIESOFMISSOURI, Graduate STUDY, Missouri Commission on School, University of Missouri, Columbia, Education, Jefferson City, Missouri, 1968. Missouri, 1956. Summers, Arthur L., EFFECTIVELEGIS- Pinkerton, James R., Rex R. Campbell, and LATION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT RE- Floyd K. Harmston, PROJECTIONS OF ORGANIZATION, The Great Plains School SOCIOECONOMIC DAT 1k TO 1967, 1975, District Organization Project,Lincoln, 1990, Research Center, School of Busi- Nebraska, 1968.

108 Summers, Arthur L., SCHOOLDISTRICT Wheeler, Hubert, Commissioner,HANDBOOK DEVELOPMENT IN MISSOURI, TheGreat FOR CLASSIFICATION ANDACCREDI- Pro- TATION OF THE TOTALSCHOOL PRO- Plains School District Organization of Education, ject, Lincoln, Nebraska,1968. GRAM, State Department Jefferson City, Missouri, 1968. Swanson, J. Chester, Director,A GATEWAY LEVELS, Field Wheeler, Hubert, Commissioner,MISSOURI TO HIGHER ECONOMIC State Service Center, School ofEducation, Uni- SCHOOL DIRECTORY,1967-68, versity of California,Berkeley, Cali- Department of Education,Jefferson City, fornia, 1966. Missouri, 1967. Alan, LOOKING AHEAD TO Wheeler, Hubert, C ommissione r,THE Thomas,J. MISSOURI, BETTER EDUCATIONINMISSOURI, PUBLIC SCHOOL LAWS OF Academy for EducationalDevelopment, State Department ofEducation, Jefferson New York, New York, 1966. City, Missouri, 1966. issione r, ONE SIX- Wheeler, Hubert, Comm Vossbrink, George W., Superintendent, HUNDRED EIGHTEENTHREPORT OF TEENTH ANNUAL REPORTOF THE OF THE STATE MISSOURI PUBLIC THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ST. LOUIS COUNTY, OF MISSOURI, SCHOOLYEAR ENDING SCHOOLS TO THE COUNTYBOARD OF State Department of YEAR JUNE 30,1967, EDUCATION FOR THE SCHOOL Education, Jefferson City,Missouri, 1968. 1967-68, St. Louis County PublicSchools, (Also the annual reportsof the Commis- Clayton, Missouri. 1967. sioner for previous years.)

109 r- PROPOSHD LOCAL SCI1001, UNIFS Ajo,, L\ coLok SOUTHLocAlRECOMMFNDED CENTRAL O/ARK:) R!(,i0NAI (,;._,1-10(); \RE iN BLACK DIsTR1cTs "PAK. withPRFSE 1\11 1100I PHI H ec I r -7\ " ,:

13=i .,,,V, R-VIII t)OUGLAS NO OZAREMO. I !OZARK R.411 144 mi ,,, .1'1014).3ED LOCAL \ITS TN COL,(Ai :-3CFK)0I, IOCTS ,\RE n

111 PlaToSED LOCAL C1IOO1. UNFIss ARE IN COLOR PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE IN BLACE

RECOMMENDED GREEN HILLS REGIONAL SCHOOL Li,STc),CT and LOCAL SCHOCA UNITS with PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS

112 . --f - f 1) Cr:. (' PIZOPOSED LN'AL SCHOOL UNITS RE IN COLOR PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS _\ Ir.: IN BLACK

'1 4

[COMMENDED BOOTHEEL REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and LOCAL SCHOOL UNITS with PRESENT SCHOOL DiSTRICTS

DP-if Pe, rf_J3n;ztv)ri ComrrissIon rlor;;!--: 196; 114 .15

R-1

11,00. 1,' B:zy

4.2 ";--2

Loc.\-1, ,\RE COTIAIR PRESENT SCHOOL DNTRICTS PLACE

115 .1 I

PROPOSED LOCALSCHOOL UNITS ARE IN COLOR PRE:DEVI SCHOOT,DISTRICTS ARE IN BLACK 116 1 )11,'M'n /(11.1,171. ft rf,,1,11, I `.r,ro.",,,, MITIf , 3. 4.9ft, ANDREW Na 1 Ada

ST. JOSEPH

PROPOSED LOCAL SCHOOLUNITS _\RE IN COLOR PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS \ItE IN BLACK

118 -,,,,,, ' r 1 1, r r; .1. ^ ` 7 rf' '",', i 41,,,,,Y),TIZEIT41., ,,,,,,,rifernt'lVir ,1 r.PIrrAnli. grTZVAPPir PROPOSED LOCAL SC11001,PRESENT hCII00I, DIS'I RIC I'S ARE IN COLOR1,,1\CI\ tr) SOUTHEASTLOCALandRECOMMENDED SCHOOL REGIONAL UNITS SCHOOL DISTRICT MissouriwithNovember,PRESENT School 1968 SCHOOL Disti i DISTRICTS Reorginizahon Commr.%ion ...... ' * 4 ow

J1.4.1.1.1....t 1'1 a ad. a ya 11., h. a wal - AT0080/11 WORTH oriv BL-11. W TH let I kitATCHON Ncku

GENTR NO.

f i I-I irta4r-vii

A:1 V, / -- ....-- :,:+,.

> ..,..._- -

,47

'Ctie), 711

RECOMMENDED NORTHWEST REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and LOCAL SCHOOL UNITS with PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS Di"nri ''.1c.,./er,hr-, 96 122 , _ .__-._----L S,...HCOL UNFFS

PROPOSED LOCAL SCHOOL -UNITS ARE IN COLOR PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 123 ARE IN BLACK I L)1-

RECOMMENDED NORTHEAST REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and LOCAL SCHOOL UNITS with PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS MIssouri School DIsTrict ReorganizatIonCmmtion November, 1968

124

erion+novelTreerAIIMMT,IVITEMR. TESIm. WV.

7j)

."4

Cr) GNI RECOMMENDED MERAMEC REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and LOCAL SCHOOL UNITS with PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS

II,,,s,c,u-S,':o-:::O'st,.,' Reoraan.zat,cn Corn,,Itt.slor c:tarnber, 1968

PROPOSED LOCAL SCHOOL UNITS ARE IN COLOR PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE IN BLACK 127

MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICTS July 1, 1968

I0 I0 20

Scale in Miles

County Boundaries School District Boundaries R-V1 District Numbers Underlined High School Districts R-Al District Numbers Not UnderlinedElementary and Closed School Distrkts

Prepared for: School District Organization for Missouri By the: Bureau of Field Studies and Surveys University of Minnesota

INESSELU RUIZ BffIZIMGECEM ANEW SZNatt =WM! lattilTLIZE

LAZE IfiELE6232:Eatectgunacts

111012E2.2321Ei MiLLIL-1612f2grain2. racrosaaEi

WASHNGTON

- - 1E2= ISSJ221 ZrE0...4429f2g 42tIffil ELMO& tiZilitter gli=t1-' iestaSILIZU

CIES& ME. Mel=hfitaErn2ZILtellea5 M21,3.070 pnEss KZ 11140WCX PLACL MAIV---M6 WORTH NO. I ATCHISON NO. I NORTH WES

NODAWAY NO. I HARRISON NO. I

GENTRY NO. I

HOLT NQ I

ANDREW NQ I DAVIESS NO. I

DEKALB NO I

BUCHANAN NO.1

CALDWELL NO I CLINTON NO. I

SAS CI RAY NO. I POCILHAN

JACKSON NCI 6 LAFAYETTE NO. I JACKSON NO. 5 JACKSCN NIQ 4 JACKSON Na 3

JACKSON NO. 2

JOHNSON

CASS NO I

HENRY NO. I

BATES NCI.I

St CLAIR, - NO.. I 18

VERNON Na I

CEDAR NO, I CED411 NO. 1 RECOMMENDED REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS OCAL SCHOOL UNITS MISSOURI

10 0 10 20 30 40

Scale in Miks

Regional School District Boundaries Local School Unit Boundaries County Boundaries

Prepared for: School District Organization for Missouri By the: Bureau of Field Studies and Surveys University of Minnesota

51 LOUIS N0.12 SELOULS NO 13 ST LOUIS NO 6 SE IOUS N0.11 SE ICUS NO. 7 SE.1.01AS NO 8 St LOW NO. 9

SE LOW NO.10 ST IOUS NO. 2 SE LOU13 NO 5 SE IOUS NO 3 SE LOUIS NO, 4 51 LOW NO 1 LAFAYETTE NCI 1 JACKSON NO 5 JACKSON! Na 4 JACKSON Kt 3

, LAFAYETTE tia I

MaYTGWERY NO I

BUCHANAN

PROPOSED LOCAL SCHOOL UNITS ARE IN COLOR PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE IN BLACK

RECOMMENDED KANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and LOCAL SCHOOL UNITS with PRESENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS Missouri School DistrictReorganization Commission November, 1968

JACKSON NO. 6 JACKSON NO. 5

JACKSON NO. 4 JACKSON NO. 3

JACKSON NO. 5

JACKSON NO. 4 JACKSON NO. 3

JACKSON H. I UNtalr linIntol

LINN II JACKSON U. 5 NM

Its 4 ChTIALNIGN SCIINI

53th ST SORTNWEST SOUTNEAST IGN SCI11101. NISI SCNOOL

GREGORY BLVD.

JACKSONNO. 4 -_,-----'

C 4

i2 I IF 'tam CASS 124

R-Vill