DOCUMENT RESUME ED 309 019 · DOCUMENT RESUME. RC 017 147. Maintaining Positive Educator Morale during. ... Chris Folk, associate superintendent for communications, Charlotte-Mecklenburg

ED 309 019

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

DOCUMENT RESUME

RC 017 147

Maintaining Positive Educator Morale duringConsolidation.

Appalachia Educational Lab.. Charleston, W. Va.;Tennessee Education Association, Nashville.Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.May 88400-86-000153p.

Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Inc., P.O. Box1348, Charleston, WV 25325 ($5.00 prepaid).Reports - Research/Technical (143)Tests /Evaluation Instruments (160)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Consolidated Schools; cooperative Planning;

Educational Research; Elementary Secondary Education;* Interviews; *Mergers; *Organizational Climate;

Questionnaires; *School Districts; School Surveys;*Teacher Morale; Telephone Surveys

IDENTIFIERS *City County School Consolidation; Educators;Kentucky; North Carolina; Tennessee

ABSTRACTThe flight of middle class families from the cities

to the suburbs has left many cities hard pressed to continue servicesat former levels. Falling enrollments and revenues have led tomergers of city and county school districts or closures of citydistricts followed by county takeover. This report documentseducators' experience of city-county school consolidation, withspecial attention to educator morale. Administrators of five NorthCarolina and Tennessee school districts that had undergoneconsolidation completed a preliminary questionnaire. Teachers andadministrators from five consolidated districts in North Carolina,Kentucky, and Tennessee took part in hour-long telephone interviewsbased on the questionnaire. Five key factors affected or reflectededucator morale before or during consolidation: (1) the extent ofplanning and of educator involvement in the planning process; (2)communications about consolidation; (3) fears about job security,transfers, inequitable treatment, and loss of benefits and specialprograms; (4) the actual events that occurred during implementation;and (5) educator grievances and departures. The districts surveyedran the gamut from minimal loss of educator morale to major traumafor educators. Recommendations for educators and community membersfacing consolidation include: (1) extensive planning that involvesboards of education, educators, and community members from bothdistricts; (2) extensive communications among all interested partiesto counteract rumors and groundless fears; and (3) strong leadershipfrom superintendents and community leaders. This report contains 15references. Appendices include the survey instruments, and mergerchronologies for Charlotte and Mecklenburg County (North Carolina),Nashville and Davidson County (Tennessee), Winston-Salem and ForsythCounty (North Carolina), Louisville and Jefferson County (Kentucky),and Knoxville and Knox County (Tennessee). (SV)

Maintaining Positive EducatorMorale During Consolidation

A Joint Study by the

Tennessee Education Associationand the

Appalachia Educational Laboratory

May 1988

Funded by the

Office of Educational Research and ImprovementU.S. Department of Education

Washington, D.C.

,-,o

TEA-AEL Maintaining Positive Educator Morale During Consolidation

The Appalachia Educational Laboratory (AEL) is located in Charleston, West Virginia. Its mission isto work w:th the Region's educators in an ongoing R & D-based effort to improve education andeducational opportunity. To accomplish this mission AEL works toward:

the improvement of professional quality,

the improvement of curriculum and instruction,

the improvement of community support, and

the improvement of opportunity for access to quality educationby all children.

Information about AEL projects, programs, and services is available by contacting the AppalachiaEducational Laboratory, Post Office Box 1348, Charleston, West Virginia 25325.

This publication is based on work sponsored wholly or in part by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement, U. S. Department of Education, under contract number 400-86-0001. Its contents do notnecessarily reflect th e views ofAEL, OERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U. S. Government.

These materials are issued in draft form for developmental purposes.

The Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Inc., is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer.

TEA-AEL Maintaining Positive Educator Morale During Consolidation=NNW AIMM111MI.

Acknowledgements

The Tennessee Education Association andthe Appalachia Educational Laboratory wish tothank those who made this publication possible.Members of the study group, all teachers in theKnox County Public Schools, developed andconducted surveys and telephone interviews,then wrote and edited the document. They are:

Jane CrabtreeKaty Dietz

Margaret JonesKarla Riddle

Carolyn Smith

Appalachia Educational Laboratory staff whocontributed include:

Pat CahapePam Coe

Jane HangeShirley Keene

Barbara MerrillMarilyn Slack

We are very much indebted to the schooldistricts that participated in the study, espe-cially to those administrators and teachers whofilled out lengthy written surveys and/or partici-pated in hour-long telephone interviews to sharetheir experienct. with other educators. Thefollowing school districts participated fully in thestudy:

Forsyth County Public Schools (North Carolina)Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky)Knox County Public Schools (Tennessee)Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (North Carolina)Metropolitan Public Schools (Nashville/Davidson

County, Tennessee)

The following teachers, administrators, andcommunity members contributed to the study bysubmitting written survey forms, responding totelephone interviews, or both:

Helen Bain, professor, Tennessee StateUniversity, Nashville, TN

iii

Nancy H. Banks, teacher, Wake County PublicSchools, NC

Wayne Bare, associate superintendent forpersonnel, Wake County Public Schools, NC

Robert Bogen, executive director, MetropolitanNashville Educatign Association, TN

W. D. Bruce, deputy superintendent for admini-stration, Jefferson County Public Schools,KY

George H. Cate, Jr., attorney, Nashville, TN

Eugene Dietz, director of communications,Metropolitan Public Schools, TN

Chris Folk, associate superintendent forcommunications, Charlotte-MecklenburgSchools, NC

Dorothy Hyder, teacher, Knox County PublicSchools, TN

Eugene Johnston, retired administrator, ForsythCounty Public Schools, NC

H. B. McDonough, retired principal.Metropolitan Public Schools, TN

Sarah Piland, public affairs supervisor,Cumberland County Public Schools, NC

John Stooksbury, principal, Knox County PublicSchools, TN

Bettie Weyler, teacher, &Arson County PublicSchools, KY

The Knox County Education Association(KCEA) hosted all study group meetings, and theKCEA president, Carolyn Smith, provided staffassistance to the stt.dy group. In addition, AELstaff Jane Hange, Classroom Instruction pro-gram director, and Pam Coe, Classroom Instruc-tion research and development specialist, partici-pated in and facilitated the work of the group.The Tennessee Education Association supportedthe costs of the telephone interviews and thedissemination of this document to members.

rTEA-AEL Maintaining Positive Educator Morale During Consolidation

Abstract

The Tennessee Education Association andthe Appalachia Educational Laboratory jointlysponsored during 1987-88 a study group of fiveteachers who examined the issue of educatormorale during city-county school consolidationand developed this product for use by educatorsconsidering consolidation. As a guide to avoidingrumor mills and entrenched opposition, "Main-taining Positive Educator Morale During Con-solidation" describes the events that occurred inthe consolidation of five districts and commonfactors that affected educator morale. On thebasis of written and telephone surveys of educa-tors in selected southern school districts thathave consolidated, the study group makes thefollowing recommendations: 1-

Planning, the most important factor in asmooth consolidation, should include outlininglegitimate reasons for consolidation; mutualplanning by the school boards involved at least ayear in advance of consolidation; a planninggroup that involves community members,teachers, and principals, as well as central officestaff and consultants if needed; a detailedtimetable for making necessary changes; provi-

sion for equitable treatment of all parties;inclusion of the "best of both" previous districts;and avoidance of duplicate positions.

Communications are the second mostimportant factor in maintaining positive educa-tion morale during transition. Meetings shouldbe held with the community and with districtpersonnel for their input and involvement in theplanning. Detailed communication concerningplanning for consolidation should begin wellbefore the fact and continue Lentil the consoli-dated district is well accepted. The study grouprecommends that school boards, administrators,teachers, and professional organizations workproactively with all the media. It may also beadvisable to set up a consolidation hotline and toschedule counseling sessions for educators andstudents with human relations specialists.

Leadership is needed throughout theconsolidation process from superintendents,community or professional association leaders,and from educators generally, especially to dealwith fears of consolidation that may arise in theconsolidating districts.


Tabie of Contents

INTRODUCTION page 1What Is a Study Group') page 1Focus of the Study Group page 1The Issue of Educator Morale page 1Rationale for the Study page 2Design of the Study page 2Merger Chronologies page 3

FACTORS AFFECTING EDUCATOR MORALE page 4Planning page 4Communications page 5Fears Affecting Educator Morale page 6Consolidation Obstacles and Accomplishments page 8Evidence of Morale Problems page 9

DISTRICT EFFORTS TO ALLEVIATE MORALE PROBLEMSpage 11

STUDY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS page 12Planning page 12Communications page 13Leadership page 13

BIBLIOGRAPHY page 14

APPENDICESAppendix A: Survey Instruments page 15Appendix B: Merger Chronologies page 41

vii


introduction

What Is a Study Group?

EL seeks to provide professional develop-ment opportunities to educators by workingwith and through their associations. Since

1985 one way the Classroom Instruction (CI)program has assisted teacher associations isthrough the creation ofjointly sponsored studygroups. AEL's purpose for a study group is toassist educators in conducting applied researchand in making research-based knowledge avail-able to educators.

A study group is composed of educators whoconduct a small-scale study and produce aproduct that is useful to their colleagues. Asso-ciations and AEL jointly select topics for studygroups, although the selection of members ishandled by the associations. AEL staff partici-pate in meetings as members of the study groupand usually take a facilitative role. AEL pro-vides a small grant to the association to assistwith study group expenses, but the associationor individual members generally make in-kindcontributions that far exceed the AEL grant.AEI, provides additional services, such asediting, layout, and typesetting of the group'sproduct. The responsibility for disseminationlies with both AEL and the association, with theassociation making the product available to itsmembers and AEL publicizing it and disseminat-ing it within a four-state Region (Tennessee,Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia) andnationally.

Focus of the Study Group

During the summer of 1087, meetingsbetween Tennessee Education Association (TEA)and AEL Classroom Instruction (CI) programstaff led to formation o- , study group of KnoxCounty teachers. The purpose of the study groupwas to document educators' experience of city-county school consolidation, especially the effects

1

on educator morale. It was centered in Knoxvilleand Knox County because teachers there had anurgent interest in the subject. The Knoxvilleschool system ceased providing services at theend of the 1986-87 school year, and the studygroup members were facing their first year asstaff of a unified Knox County school system.

In this study, the words "consolidation" and"merger" are used virtually interchangeably.The legal term when two or more districtsbecome a single, unified school district is"merger." "Merger" is used in this documentwhen it is appropriate to emphasize that theconsolidation process involved school diarietsrather than schools. However, more frequentlythe group chose to use the more generic term,"consolidation," in part because two of the fiveschool districts surveyed in-depth did not"merge" in the legal sense of the term. In thesecases the city district simply closed, and theexisting county district assumed the responsibili-ties of the former city district. Moreover, theissue of morale, the focus of this study, is onethat affects consolidation within districts as wellas between districts. The morale issues dis-cussed in this publication may affect educatorsand communities involved in school consolida-tion, as well as those involved in district merg-ers. The broader term, "consolidation," coversboth types of situations.

The Issue of Educator Morale

At its first meeting, the study group decidedto focus on the issue of maintaining and improv-ing educators' morale during the frequentlystressful period when two separate schooldistricts become one. Not only was morale anissue of immediate practical concern to the studygroup members, but it is an area of school lifeover which teachers can expect to exert somecontrol.

Not only educators in Knox County buteducators in many school districts need informa-


tion on the effects of consolidation and howeducators can ease the transition. In any majorchange that threatens current programs andbenefits, morale is almost sure to suffer. Ulti-mately, if the change is handled creatively, thesystem may be improved and morale actuallyenhanced. But some loss of morale is virtuallyinevitable before and during school districtconsolidationor school consolidation.

The number of educators and communitiesthreatened with loss of individual schools be-cause of shrinking enrollments is even greaterthan those threatened by district merger. Thoseparts of this study that deal specifically witheducator morale should be of interest to educa-tors in any district where district merger orschool closings are a possibility.

Several respondents to the study group'ssurveys mentioned in passing that consolidationof school districts also required the two teachers'associations to consolidate. In two cases, therespondents felt that the association mergerswent more smoothly than the school districtmergers; in a third case, a teacher reported thatthe merger of the two associations was tense.Even in that case, however, NEA guidelines forthe protection of human and civil liberties werefollowed.

Rationale for the Study

The literature on city-county school districtconsolidation is rather sparse, consisting of somecase studies, some policy statements, and veryfew research studies. Considering the wealth ofmaterial on shrinking enrollments, retrench-ment, reductions in faculty, and school closings,the lack of attention to district consolidation israther surprising.

There are signs that school districts mayincreasingly come under pressure to merge withether districts. The North Carolina Manual forMerger (Bridgman, 1987) points out that demo-graphic pressures are changing. When most citydistricts were established, the wealth of thecommunity was usually concentrated within thecity limits, as were the middle class families whowere willing to tax themselves to improve theirchildren's educational opportunities. Special cityschool levies were passed to ensure enriched

2

programs in the city school districts.Since World War II, industry as well as

middle class families have left most cities for thesuburbs. Now, it is frequently the county orsuburban school districts that have the relativelywealthy constituencies pressuring them forbetter services. The cities, losing income, arehard pressed to continue the level of servicesthey have established. This demographic trendis reflected in the survey data of this study. Twoof the city school districts studied were abolishedbecause city revenues were no longer adequate tooperate schools.

Only one of the four states in the AELRegion is unaffected by this demographic pres-sure for city-county consolidation. In WestVirginia, all school districts are already organ-ized on a county basis. In the other three states(Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia), manyschool districts have already been consolidated,anti others are under pressure to consolidate.Educators in school districts that may consoli-date need to understand the issues involved andthe e .periences of others who have already livedthrough consolidation, in order to take a proac-tive role in the change process.

Federal and other monies were available toease the transition for some of the earlier merg-ers in this study, especially those undertaken inpart to facilitate school desegregation (Levineand Eubanks, 1986; Lucas, 1976; and Schmandtet al., 1977). Decreasing enrollments and loss offunding appear to have been major factors inmore recent mergers (Bridgman, 1987; andMoray, 1985).

Design of the Study

After a review of the literature, the studygroup designed a questionnaire on consolidation,which they sent to superintendents ofsevensouthern school districts that had undergonecity-county school consolidation. These districtswere chosen on the basis of literature review andverbal referrals. Staff of five school districtsresponded to this written survey: CumberlandCounty Public Schools, NC; Forsyth CountyPublic School, NC; Charlotte-MecklenburgSchools, NC; Metropolitan Public Schools (Nash-ville/Davidson County, TN); and Wake County


Public Schools, NC. A copy of the survey isfound in Appendix A.

On the basis of the information generated bythis survey and a survey of Knox County schoolfaculties, the study group members designed atelephone survey instrument to allow them togather in-depth perceptions of selected educa-tors. In the orginal written survey, respondentswere asked to list the greatest obstacles and thegreatest accomplishments and benefits of con-solidation. The list of obstacles was incorporatedinto the telephone survey and has been incorpo-rated into this report. The telephone surveyform is included as Appendix A.

Study group members conducted hour-longtelephone interviews with teachers and adminis-trators in five school districts, including two notrepresented in the response from the writtensurvey: Jefferson County Public Schools, KY,and Knox County Public Schools, TN. Eachstudy group member agreed to conduct telephonesurveys with two people, usually one teacher andone administrator, nominated from one of thedistricts. The following discussion is based oninformation from both the written survey andthe telephone survey. The term "in-depth" isused throughout the document to refer to datafrom the telephone survey. School districts andall respondents were assured that their re-sponses would be pooled with those from otherdistricts, so that anonymity would be main-tained.

In each case, the district superintendentdesignated for telephone interviewing an admin-istrator who had been integrally involved in theconsolidation process, and the president of thelocal National Education Association (NEA)affiliate designated a teacher for a similarinterview.

The study group then analyzed the data,

3

-c7 0

divided the writing tasks, and individuallydrafted sections of the publication. AEL staffcomposed some sections, edited, and typeset thestudy group's product. In addition to publicizingand disseminating Coping With Consolidation atcost within its four-state Region and th3 nationthrough the Lab and Center network, AELprovided camera-ready copy to TEA for dissemi-nation of the document to TEA members.

Clearly, it is impossible to generalize on thebasis of information from so few respondents ineach district studied. The limitations of such asmall sample of respondents are reflected in thefollowing incident. The administrator from oneschool district reported that teachers and princi-pals were not involved in planning for consolida-tion, while a teacher from the same districtreported that she had been the teacher represen-tative on the planning committee, but that thedistrict had failed to implement most of thecommittee's recommendations.

We hope that educators throughout the AELRegion will find this booklet helpful in decidinghow to plan for and communicate during consoli-dation, when and if it occurs in their districts. Itshould be reassuring to read that a schooldistrict merger is not always a traumatic experi-ence for those involved but can be an opportunityfor improvementfor those who plan ahead.

Merger Chronologies

For each of the five districts surveyed in-depth, a chronology is given in Appendix B.Each chronology outlines the critical events thattook place before and during the merger of thetwo school districts and was developed from in-formation provided by the district and/or avail-able from public sources.


Factors Affecting Educator Morale

N the basis of results from their twowritten surveys, the study group identi-fied five key factors affecting or reflecting

educator morale prior to and during the consoli-dation process. These were: (1) planning (theamount of planning and the extent to whichteachers and principals were involved in theplanning), (2) communication about consolida-tion, (3) fears raised by consolidation, (4) theactual events that occurred during the consolida-tion process, and (5) the presence or absence ofindicators of morale problems among educatorsprior to and during consolidation.

Planning

Respondents in the majority of districtssurveyed by study group members indicated thatplanning was the most important factor in asmooth, successful merger. Most of the districtssurveyed did extensive planning prior to theimplementation of consolidation. Following aredescriptions of the most common strategiesreported.

Planning committees. In six of the eightdistricts surveyed, respondents described com-mittees appointed by either city and county gov-ernment or by the two school boards to studyconsolidation and make recommendations priorto development of a plan. One of these respon-dents, however, added that very few of thecommittee's recommendations were adopted inthe eventual consolidation process. Some re-spondents did not mention planning committees,and one administrator said that while all seg-ments of the community and many schoolpersonnel were involved informally, the consoli-dation was essentially unplanned so there wasno time to set up planning committees. Thisrespondent strongly emphasized the importance

4

of preplanning, even when there are severe timeconstraints. He said that planning is the key toa smooth consolidation.

Educator and studen: involvement. Re-spondents from three districts reported thatteachers and principals were included on theplanning committees that were appointed, and inone case the teachers' association took the leadin selling school consolidation to the community.Four of the five districts surveyed in-depth hadsome student involvement in the planning,according to written survey respondents. Inmost cases, however, students were involvedprimarily in public meetings; staff of only onedistrict reported that students were representedon the planning committee. In the two districtswhere respondents reported substantial teacher-principal involvement in planning and imple-menting consolidation, there were smoothermergers than were reported in the other districtssurveyed. In these districts, involvement ap-peared to reduce fears and increase communica-tions.

Community involvement. Respondents infour districts reported that efforts were made toinvolve community representatives in theplanning well in advance of consolidation. Theseefforts ranged from appointment of a blue ribboncommittee to consultation with representativecommunity groups such as the PTA, Chamber ofCommerce, and professional associations. In twoof these districts, the initiative for consolidationdid not originate in the school district but in thecommunity. The newspapers and the Chamberof Commerce took the lead in one community; inthe other, the political power structure of thecommunity.

Interim board of education. In three ofthe districts surveyed, an interim board of

11


education was appointed to work out the specif-ics of the consolidation process. Respondentsreported that the appointment of an interimboard made for an orderly transition and mini-mized the uncertainties staff h4d to face as themechanics of merging the districts were workedout. When the districts were consolidated beforethese mechanics were worked out, respondentsreported that there was considerable confusionas the plan was implemented.

The majority of teachers and administratorsemphasized the importance of extensive plan-ning and the importance of involving schoolpersonnel in the planning.

Communications

In analyzing the data from the five districtssurveyed in-depth, the study group found thatthe districts employed a variety of ways tocommunicate information about consolidation.

Central office communications. Most ofthe districts made some use of public meetings(including PTA meetings), memos, letters,newsletters, and faculty/staff meetings to com-municate information about the consolidationprocess. In two of the districts, the teachers whoresponded to the telephone survey reported thatthey felt the meetings for faculty and staff hadnot been effective in calming fears and givingstaff the information they needed about consoli-dation planning. In one of these districts, theteacher respondent reported that all communica-tions from central administration to the staffwere ineffective in part, because there was a newsuperintendent who was unfamiliar with districtpersonnel and history. In at least one of thesetwo districts, central administrators institutedformal meetings with teachers throughout thefirst year of implementing the plan.

Community and professional organiza-tions. In all five of the districts surveyed in-depth, community organizations and profes-sional associations were active in publicizing theconsolidation plans through public meetings,newsletters, and the like. In one case, commu-nity groups initiated the planning for consolida-tion. Conversely, in another district, both the

5

411111111MMENNIMMII11111

teacher and the administrator respondentsreported that most of the public meetings intheir community werd held by citizens' groupsopposed to the school district's plans. In theremaining three districts, community groupscooperated with the school district in publicizingthe merger.

Teacher involvement. Memos, letters,and/or newsletters were used in virtually alldistricts surveyed. Teacher involvement in suchcommunications ran the gamut from one schooldistrict in which little or no teacher input intothis information was reported, to another inwhich teacher input was prominent. The teacherrespondent from a third district reported thatmost of teachers' information about consolidationprior to implementation of the plan came fromthe teacher association newsletter rather thanfrom central administration. in two districtswhere teachers reported that there was littleteacher involvement in any of the communica-tions about consolidation, respondents reportedthat a "rumor mill" had quickly developed. Inone case, respondents reported that the rumorswere spread primarily among teachers; in theother case, parents were also reported as gener-ating and spreading rumors. While none of thedistricts surveyed for this study instituted aformal consolidation hotline, the study groupfound through literature review (Lucas, 1976)that some districts have instituted such a hotlineand found it helpful in calming fears andcountering misinformation.

Television. In each school district surveyedin-depth, respondents reported that televisionstations covered the merger as a news event.The extent of coverage depended on the amountof public controversy surrounding consolidation.In only one district, however, did respondentsreport that the school district secured televisionair time to disseminate information to the public.

Radio. As with television, radio stationsconsistently covered consolidation as a newswor-thy event. Two of the school districts surveyedin-depth took the initiative to make extensiveuse of radio to explb.'n and interpret the consoli-dation plan. Staff appeared on a number ofquestion-and-answer radio programs and on


other "talk show" programs. Radio was the mainmedia source of news about consolidation for onedistrict.

Newspapers. Newspapers generallycovered consolidation as news, with considerablecoverage prior to merger and less afterwardsunless there was continuing community coiltoo-versy. Newspaper coverage tended to be ingreater depth than television or radio coverage.On editorial pages, newspapers included opin-ions supporting or opposing the consolidationplan. in only one school district did a respondentreport that the news coverage itself was slanted.In two of the five districts surveyed in-depth,respondents did not report whether the localnewspapers took a position on the consolidationquestion.

Other. Respondents to the telephone surveywere asked if their school districts had used anyother kinds of communications to disseminateinformation about consolidation. Respondents intwo school districts reported other kinds ofcommunications. In one district, both respon-dents reported that various churches had pro-vided more support for the plan than any othertype of community group and that the localteacher association had found many ways ofgetting information out. Both before and afterconsolidation, the school district brought in anumber of outside experts, including humanrelations experts, to work with staff aid stu-dents to help them adjust to the change. In theother district, a wide variety of approaches hadbeen taken, including soliciting support door-todoor by members of the teachers' association;having the Mothers Patrol (representing thePTA) take a strong stand in favor of consolida-tion; and having teachers operate a speakers'bureau for the PTA, various community groups,and churches. The teacher respondent in thisdistrict felt that the speakers' bureau was themost effective method of communication used.

Responcit.ilts who felt communication aboutconsolidation had been too sparse in their schooldistricts emphasized the importance of havingadequate communication and counteracting the"rumor mill." At least one respondent from aschool district where consolidation had gonesmoothly emphasized strongly the need foreducators to take a proactive role in making st:re

11MIIIIM

that school district personnel and communitymembers received needed information to takeinformed action concerning consolidation.

Fears Affecting Educator Morale

A pervasive theme in the responses to thestudy group's inquiry was the fear ofchange. Aswith any new venture, especially one as complexas the merger of two separate school districts,facing unfamiliar situations aroused a myriad offears and anxieties. In several of the districtssurveyed, school desegregation and consolidationwere combined, adding to the general fear of theunknown. Half of those who completed thewritten questionnaire listed fear of the unknownas a factor in educators' morale. Respondents tothe telephone survey talked more about thespecific fears included as items in that survey.These were worries about job security, transferissues, loss of current benefits, loss of specialprograms, loss of preconsolidation districtstrengths, and fear of inequitable treatment.

Job security. In three of the five districtssurveyed by telephone interview, respondentsreported that educators had feared for their jobsecurity. In of 'f these districts, teachers andadministrator were notified during the summerthat their contracts would not be renewed by theunified district but then were rehired before thebeginning of the next school yi.ar. In the othertwo districts, fear of job loss was kept to aminimum, because educators were assured bythe boards of education and/or goverr.iiig bodiesthat there would be no loss of jobs. In theremaining two districts, there were writtenguarantees, reinforced by state law in both cases,that no positions would be cut.

In several districts, educator, feared loss oftenure or failure to receive tenure on schedule,as a result of consolidation. In one district inparticular, teachers feared that possession ofseniority might jeopardize their jobs, because theunified district might not want to hire the moreexpensive teachers.

In general, respondents reported that centraloffice staff had a more realistic fear of losingtheir jo1,3 or having to take demotions thanbuilding level staff. In th:--Je of the districts,

6


respondents reported that there had beenduplications in central office positions thateventually had to be resolved by giving somestaff different positions than they had heldpreviously, sometimes demotions to "assistant"status.

Transfers. In three of the five districts,respondents reported that educators fearedinvoluntary transfers between schools. In one ofthese districts, the plan included the transfers oflarge numbers of both teachers and students, sothat the fears were not that the transfers wouldhappen but about the procedures that would beused in determining transfers. In the other twodistricts, fears of transfer were allayed whenlarge-scale transfers did not occur. In twodistricts, respondents reported that educatorsexpressed minimal concern about procedures fortransfer, because transfer policies in the twooriginal districts were very similar. In one of theother two districts where there was no reportedconcern, the question of transfers was neverraised except that some teachers viewed consoli-dation as an opportunity for voluntary transfersacross the former district lines. In the otherdistrict where educators did not fear involuntarytransfer, they were assured ahead of time thatthere would be no transfers across formerdistrict lines.

Loss of current benefits. Fear of loss ofjob benefits as a result of the merger surfaced inthree of the five districts surveyed, to varyingdegrees. Educators were concerned about suchbenefits as sr1ary, seniority, tenure status,retirement plans, and insurance benefits. In twoof the districts, respondents said that educatorsquestioned the planners about benefits but weresatisfied with the answers they received. In onlyone of the districts was major concern expressedabout losing current benecAs. In spite of statelaws protecting certain benefits in this district,educators expressed much concern over specificbenefit issues, such as loss of pensions, loss ordelay of tenure status, and loss of promisedraises.

In the two other districts where anxietieswere expressed, fears were allayed rather easily;however, in at least one of the districts, educa-tors expressed concern over insurance benefits or

7

discrepancies in insurance coverage between thetwo former districts. In one district, the plancalled for adopting the higher of the two benefitschedules. In the other, the written agreementprovided for educators to remain in their currentbenefit system and for newly hired teachers to gointo a newly developed plan. Since the new planprovided better benefits than either of the twopreceding plans, educators were allowed totransfer into it on a voluntary basis.

Loss of special programs. Consolidationof the curricula of the former districts was aconcern reported by staff of four districts whoresponded to the written survey and by respon-dents from threw of the fi 'e districts surveyed in-depth through telephone in'z.arviews.

In the written survey, respondents citedcurriculum consolidation and improvement asone of the benefits of merger. One personspecified that there had been fears, but they hadmade an effort to take the best of both formerdistricts. Another said that a commitment hadbeen made to continue all special programs fromboth farmer districts.

In the telephone survey, educators in threeof the five districts reported that administratorsand teachers were concerned that the bestprograms of both districts might not be contin-ued. Not only were the current curricula of thetwo districts different, but there were a numberof special programs that staff of each districtvalued, which might not be valued by the other.Both respondents from one school district re-ported that many special, federally-fundedprograms had been lost after consolidation. Bothrespondents from another district reported thatonly one program had been adversely effected todate, but final decisions had not been made atthe end of the first year of consolidation as to thecurricula and programs that would be supportedby the unified district.

In one district, the teacher respondent spokeof fears of losses in areas other than curriculum.She said that an excellent relationship hadexisted between the teacher association and thecentral office staff in one of the previous dis-tricts. This relationship was in danger of beinglost, as was a commitment to maximize thenumber of minority teachers in the schooldistrict.

AA .... ,4

IMIIM1111111111111111111111.TEA-AEL Maintaining Positive Educator Morale During Consolidation

Respondents from the other two districtsreported that there was some initial concernabout maintaining the strengths of the twoformer districts, but these fears were soonovercome. Both of these districts had extensiveplans in place before the actual merger tookplace. There had been five years of preplanningin one of these districts. In the other, planningfor consolidation began as soon as it was clearthat a merger was going to happen.

Fear of inequitable treatment. In four ofthe five districts participating in the telephonesurveys, respondents reported fears cf inequi-table treatment in personnel decisions under thenewly-merged systems. This was especially trueof administrators in those districts where centraloffice staff shared positions initially, not know-ing which person would continue in the positionover the long term.

Several of the consolidations were not truemergers; rather, the city district disbanded andthe county district assumed its responsibilities.In these situations, staff of the former citydistrict reported feeling like stepchildren of thecounty district, feeling unwanted, and fearingthey would not be adequately represented in theunified central office staff. Even in these situ-ations, different respondents reported quitedifferent feelings. For instance, a former cityprincipal in one of these districts said that hequickly and easily established excellent relation-ships with the central office staff of the countydistrict, even though he reported that most of hispeers felt neglected and burned out.

In one of the districts where there were fearsof inequity, a solution was arranged that was soeffective that it is still in operation many yearslater. The superintendent established aSuperintendent's Council composed ofoneteacher from each school, elected by the schoolstaff, who met and contime to meet monthlywith the superintendent. Educators may raiseconcerns, submitting questions ahead of time ifthey wish to remain anonymous or raising themat the meeting. Concerns that former city orcounty faculties were being favored and thatprincipals and Leachers had no input into centraloffice decisio. 3 dissipated as a result of thesemeetings.

In another district, fear of inequitable8

treatment did not arise because the professionalassociation, which represen_d both teachers andadministrators, had been merged several yearsprior to district consolidation and had takenleadership in selling the community on themerger. This led to a "honeymoon" period afterthe merger, when government leaders, schoolsystem leaders, and educators from both of theformer districts cooperated.

Other concerns. Respondents from thefive school districts surveyed in-depth reportedavariety of other concerns. In two school districts,there was concern that funding might not beadequate to implement the ambitious plan oftaking the best from both the former districts.Equalization of retirement benefits and payemerged as concerns from four of the five schooldistricts. Loss of identity and the need for ma:,adaptation to different daily operations werecited as worries by another respondent. Fear ofhaving a political patronage system influencingthe schools for the first time was mentioned by ateacher respondent from another district. In onedistrict, there was fear that the quality of educa-tion would be compromised because of theturmoil surrounding the massive changes in theschools. The administrator respondeat reportedthat, indeed, test scores indicated studentachievement did decline for e short time afterconsolidation.

Consolidation Obstacles andAccomplishments

Accomplishments. Since most respondentsfelt that consolidation had ultimately improvedthe school system, below are listed some of thebenefits respondents felt the merger had accom-plished. Equalization of services was listed as amajor benefit by staff of three school districts,and curricu;um improvement was listed by staffin two districts. Improved efficiency in fundingrequests was cited by three respondents, as wasgreater efficiency and fairness in operating theschools, (for instance, students could be assignedand new buildings built without regard to theformer district boundaries). Respondents fromfour districts felt that consolidation made schooldesegregation easier by helping prevent "white

TEA-AEL. Maintaining Positive Educator Morale During Consolidation

flight." Finally, several respondents felt thatconsolidation had facilitated community develop-ment and city-county planning for expansion.

Obstacles. In all five of the school districtssurveyed in-depth, respondents reported thatsome problems occurred in actual implementa-tion of consolidation. In the section on educators'fears, it was reported that some of the fears hadbeen actualized. These events will not be re-peated here.

In the least problematic situation, educatorshad not feared consolidation but found that itwas difficult to work out appropriate retirementbenefits. It was necessary to amend the writtenplan for consolidation in order to solve thisproblem. Another unanticipated problem in thisdistrict was that teachers had a voice in choosingthe superintendent hired to administer theunified district, but the teacher respondent saidthat they were disappointed in their choice. Shefelt they did not have adequate experience ortraining to make such a choice knowledgeably.

In the other four districts, respondentsreported that some of the fears expressed beforeconsolidation were realized, and some problemsarose that had not been anticipated. In two ofthese districts, the problems were soon forgotten(for instance, duplications of administrativepositions; reconciliation of differences in proce-dures, pay schedules, and curriculum; andinstitution of a longer school day). In the re-maining two districts, major problems arose thatwere not easily resolved.

In one district, teachers felt so mistreatedduring the events surrounding consolidation thatthey went on strike the following year. This wasthe same district in which the administratorrespondent suggested that the short time thedistrict had for planning and implementingconsolidation may have prevented even greaterdisruption, as it reduced people's opportunity to"build fences of emotion and fear." Ironicallyenough, the teachers' strike was reported by theteacher respondent to have helped unify theteachers from the two former districts and led toa much improved school district.

In another school district surveyed, therewere many disputes and much litigation abouteducator benefits. While salary scales wereeventually equalized, educators from the former

9

city school district took drastic salary cutsduring the first year of consolidation, as much as$5,000 for some administrators. This district, inthe opinion of district respondents, also failed toresolve most of the questions concerning consoli-dation of the curriculum, duplication of adminis-trative positions, and continuation of specialprograms during the first year of consolidation.For instance, a high school principal in thedistrict reported that he did not know at the endof the first year of consolidation at what gradelevel the band program would start the nextyear. The teacher respondent reported that thepolicy concerning social promotion had beendifferent in the two former school districts, withthe result that some children who had beenretained in the early grade levels were suddenlyjumped several grades.

Respondents reported that in several dis-tricts teachers worked longer hours (in oneinstance for less pay). In at least one district,many teachers complained that there wasgreatly increased paper work, in addition to thedifficulties of learning a different paper worksystem. Duplication of administrative positionscaused problems with administrative leadershipin four districts: inability to define who hadspecific responsibilities for program implementa-tion, different or undefined procedures, poororganization of the central office, and break-downs in communication.

Evidence of Morale ProblemsIn two of the five districts surveyed, respon-

dents reported only he most minor evidence ofmorale problems associated with consolidation.In another district, a few teachers and adminis-trators chose to retire earlier than they hadplanned because of uncertainty about the unifieddistrict. However, no grievances or suits werereported, perhaps because educators had beeninvolved in the planning for consolidation.

In the remaining two districts, respondentsreported that a number of educators had left thedistrict in response to consolidation, someseeking jobs outside of education. Also, earlyretirements were reported as common in both ofthese situations. A large number of grievanceshad been filed over such issues as equalization ofpay and benefits, pensions, violations of senior-

6


ity, denial of tenure, and inequities in thetransfer policy. Both of these school districts arestill involved in litigation arising out of theschool consolidation process. Significant num-bers of students were reported to have left thedistrict in one instance, but most returned after

10

the community disruption had died down.The five districts surveyed by the study

group seemed to run the gamut from minimalevidence of loss of educator morale to evidence ofmajor trauma for the educators in the schooldistrict.

TEA-AEL Maintaining Positive Educator Morale During ConsolidationiDistrict Efforts to AlleviateMorale Problems

MILL five school districts surveyed took somesteps to alleviate educators' morale prob-lems. Some of these steps have already

been described, for instance, ensuring that thebest salary, benefits, and curricula from bothprevious districts were retained. TheSuperintendent's Council that was established inone school district is another example of asuccessful method for alleviating educators'stress and distrust of change.

Respondents from one school district re-ported the least effort to alleviate morale prob-lems: reassurance from the board of educationand discussions with the staff. In anotherdistrict, the teacher association sponsored staffdevelopment programs in the schools on topics

11

such as stress reduction, and the superintendentbegan a series of informal meetings with teach-ers in the teacher center. More elaborate work-shops, retreats, and meetings were held in two ofthe districts. One district brought in humanrelations consultants to work with teachers andadministrators, especially in the area of trust.In one district, districtwide faculty meetingswere held through the medium of closed circuittelevision. The board members and superinten-dent addressed the entire faculty through thismeans. All of the communications betweencentral administration and school staff, de-scribed in previous sections of this report, servedto alleviate morale problems, in the opinion ofrespondents.

TEA-AEL Maintaining Positive Educator Morc!e During Consolidation

Study Group Recommendations

7rHE dominant theme of the informationgathered from the surveys is that exten-sive planning before the merger actually

occurs makes for a smoother, less stressfultransition in city-county school district consolida-tion. Second only to planning is the importanceof communication. Although the fear of theunknown surfaced in all five of the districtssurveyed in-depth, the two districts that re-ported fewest problems were those in whichplanning prior to consolidation was extensiveand involved teachers and principals as well ascentral administrators, and in which there wasan extensive flow of communication among allconcerned parties. It would appear that, wheneducators and the public express their ideas,concerns, and fears in the planning stage, theyoften become more receptive to and involvedwith changes that must occur to combine two ormore separate districts.

Even in the two school districts that had themost difficult transitions, educators gave hopefuladvice. As a teacher in one of these situationssaid, "It makes one sick to carry too manygrudges," and "If it doesn't kill you, it will makeyou stronger."

Based on their review of the literature,analysis of the survey and interview data, andexperience with consolidation, study groupmembers offer the following recommendationsfor educators and community members consider-ing city-county district consolidation.

Planning

Legitimate reasons for consolidation (forinstance, program improvement, equalization ofservices, or financial incentives) should beexplained and widely publicized.

12

The merging school boards should bemutually involved in planning for consolidationas far ahead of time as possiblea minimum of ayear before the effective date of merger.

A planning group that involves thecommunity (for instance, the local Chamber ofCommerce, affected professional associations,the PTA, city and county government) should beformed. Both boards of education; central officestaffs, teachers, and principals from both dis-tricts; and professional consultants (as needed)should participate in the planning group.

A timetable, which precedes and extendsthrough the first year of consolidation, should bedeveloped to outline specific changes in practiceand policy.

The consolidation plan should provide forequitable treatment of all affected parties.

Within funding limits, the "best of both"districtsthe higher salaries, better benefits,richer curriculum, better facilities, etc.shouldbe kept. Equalization of salaries, benefits, etc.,should occur as soon as possible.

Duplication of positions should beavoided to the extent possible; when duplicationcannot be avoided, job responsibilities should beclearly delineated so that two persons do nothave exactly the same responsibilities. Whenpossible, duplication should be reduced throughattrition.

State legislators should enact legislationrequiring that all of the preceding planning stepstake place prior to the first year of governance bya consolidated board of education and admini-stration.


Communications

Public meetings and district personnelmeetings should be held prior to consolidationfor community and staff input into the planning.

Thorough, ongoing communications fromthe school district should begin well beforeconsolidation and continue until the two districtsare completely merged and there is generalacceptance cf the unified district. Surveying isan effective method of determining what thepublic and school staffs need to know.

The school boards of education, adminis-trators, teachers, and professional associationsshould work proactively with all the communica-tions media. School boards and educator asso-ciations should disseminate information aboutconsolidation through newsletters and othermeans of providing community and staff withdetailed information about the mechanics andbenefits of consolidation.

A consolidation hotline may be estab-

13

NaMilMiliMO

lished to inform the public and district person-nel, to counteract rumors, and to reassureeducators when fears are groundless.

Counseling or communication sessionswith human relations specialists may be em-ployed to help students, teachers, and otherscope with identity problems created by districtconsolidation.

Leadership

There must be strong leadership fromthe superintendent(s) before, during, and afterconsolidation to generate support for the planand for the unified district.

Community leaders and/or professionalassociation leaders should take leadershipamong citizens and colleagues to facilitate asmooth transition during consolidation.

Administrators should continue to givewarranted positive reinforcement to educators iffears emerge regarding such issues as job secu-rity or loss of benefits.

0 ( 1iv ,..i


Bibliography

Booth, David A. Metropolitics: The NashvilleConsolidation. East Lansing: Michigan StateUniversity Press, 1963.

Bridgman, John N., Jr. (Ed.). A Manual forMerger: A Guide to Examine the Feasibility andImplications of Merger: The Pros and Cons.Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State Departmentof Public Instruction, Division of School Plan-ning, March 1987.

Brodinsky, Ben; Neill, Shirley B. (Eds.). Build-ing Morale. Motivating Staff. Problems andSolutions. No. 12 in AASA Critical Issues Series.Sacramento, CA: Education News Service, 1983.

Burlingame, Martin. "Declining Enrollmentsand Small Rural Cities and District:: An Ex-ploratory Analysis." Education and UrbanSociety, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 313-332, May 1979.

Hawkins, Brett W. Nashville Metro: ThePolitics of City-County Consolidation. Nashville:Vanderbilt University Press, 1966.

Levine, Daniel U.; Eubanks, Eugene F. "ThePromise and Limits of Regional DesegregationPlans for Central City School Districts." Metro-politan Education, No. 1, pp. 36-51, Spring 1986.

Lucas, Robert E. "Lincoln Heights-PrincetonMergerFive Years Later." Ohio Department ofEducation, Office of Equal Opportunity, MiniJournal, Vol. 7, No. 2, February 1976.

Lyons, W. E. Politics of City-County Merger:The Lexington-Fayette County Experience.Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky,1977.

14

"M=11111111=1

Moray, Mary. School Consolidation: Easing theTransition. Administrative Report . RedwoodCity, CA: San Mateo County Office of Educaon,March 1985. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. 272 346)

Mullins, Carolyn. "School District Consolidation:Odds Are 2 to 1 It'll Get You." American SchoolBoard Journal, Vol. 1E0, No. 11, pp. 23-26,November 1973.

National Public Radio. School Consolidation: IsBigger Better? Part I. Options in Education,Program #89. Washington, D. C.: GeorgeWashington University, Institute for Educa-tional Leadership, August 1977. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. 144 236)

Phelan, William T. "Staffing Policies in Times ofRetrenchment: Teacher Opinions." PeabodyJournal of Education, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 37-48,Winter 1983.

Schmandt, Henry J., et al. Government, Politics,and the Public Schools: A Preliminary Study ofThree Cities. Saint Louis, MO: Saint LouisUniversity Center for Urban Programs, Septem-ber 1977. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. 149 000)

Sher, Jonathan P. "Rethinking School DistrictReorganization." Compact, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 13-15, Summer 1977.

Sparks, Dennis. "The Human Factor in Busi-nessAnd in Schools." Journal of Staff Develop-ment, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 6-13, May 1984.


Appendix A

Survey Instruments

15

TEA-AEL STUDY GROUPSchool Consolidation Questionnaire

Please respond carefully and thoroughly to the followingquestions regarding school/district consolidation in yourdistrict. If you need more space than allowed, please usethe back of the sheet or an additional sheet. Thank you.

1. Why did you consolidate schools?

2. Was the consolidation within the district or with anotherdistrict?

3. What were the beginning and ending dates of yourdistrict's consolidation process? Is your district stillinvolved in the process of consolidation?

4. Please summarize (chronologically, if possible) majorplanning steps to your district's consolidation.

5. Please describe any communications during the processof consolidation.

a. What communication with staff (all levels) wasinvolved?

b. What communication with communities was undertaken?

17re)

c. Were students involved?

6. Have changes to district/school policies and/or practicesbeen made due to consolidation? In what areas -- per-sonnel, transportation, etc.? Please describe.

7. Have you assessed the effects of consolidation on studentsand community members? If so, how and what were yourfindings?

8. Was teacher morale affected by school/district consolida-tion? If so, in what ways?

18

9. Did communications between staff and administration becomea problem? If so, how were problems overcome? If no,what steps were taken to avoid communication problems?

10. In your opinion, what were the three greatest obstaclesto consolidation? How did your district or individualschools overcome these?

11. What were the three greatest accomplishments/benefitsresulting from consolidation? Why were these signifi-cant?

19

..,

12. Would you be available for a brief telephone interviewfor further information? If so, please provide below aschool or home number at which you may be contracted andhours available.

Thank you for assisting the Knox County Education Associa-tion-Appalachia Educational Laboratory study group in ourexamination of successful school/district consolidation. Youwill receive a copy of the group's publication, which willsummarize data provided and respect confidentiality ofsources.

Please return questionnaire to: Jane Hange, DirectorClassroom InstructionAppalachia EducationalLaboratoryP. 0. Box 1348Charleston, WV 25325

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEA-AEL STUDY GROUPTELEPHONE SURVEY

INSTRUCTIONS

Please write responses in the space provided. Use the back of the paperif you run out of room.

1. Introduction: Use the following statement.

Hello, I am . I am a member of astudy group sponsored by the Tennessee Education Association

and the Appalachia Educational Laboratory. Did you read theletter we sent in advance explaining our project?

Notes (record response):

Probe: If the respondent says no, read him or her the letter,of which you will have a copy.

21

The study group is looking into concerns that arisewhen city and county school systems consolidate. Weparticularly want to :look at the way teachers' and principals'morale is affected by consolidation. What we want to dois identify ways to address any problems eddcators havewith consolidation so that any fears or anxieties can beeased as quickly as possible. Our plan is to write ashort booklet for the benefit of staff in school districtsthat are considering consolidation. Before we start thesurvey, do you have any questions?

Notes (record response and answer the questions to the best of yourability--but, if you don't know the answer, say so, and refer therespondent to Pam Coe at AEL, 800/624-9120):

22

2. Clarify the timetable for the district's consolidation. You willhave a brief timetable with a list of the sources from which we tookit. Use the following statement:

We want to include a brief timetable of each district's

consolidation in the booklet. I have a very brief timetablebased on [cite the sources for this

district]. May I read it to you to make sure our sources areaccurate? Please make corrections if anything is wrong. [If

the respondent gives permission, read the timetable and recordall comments the respondent makes about it.]


23

3. Questions

A. Were educators (both teachers and principals) involved in theplanning for consolidation, that is, planning activitiesconducted before the actual consolidation took place?


Probe: If the answer is no, ask: Were educators (both teachersand principals) consulted at all about planning for consolidation?

Notes (record responses):

"U24

If the answer is yes, ask: How were they involved?

Note (record r- ;ponse):

25,r I

B. The following issues have been mentioned as concerns educatorshave had in some school districts prior to consolidation. Wouldyou tell me, for each issue, whether it was a worry in yourdistrict and, if so, hrw serious a worry?


a. Job security

b. Fear of transfers to other buildings

26

c. Fear of losing current benefits after consolidation

d. Fear of losing special programs

27 t 0 0

e. Fear of losing the strengths of current school organization

f. Fear of inequities in the way people would be treated underconsolidation

g. What other worries did educators have in your district?Please be specific.

C. In hindsight, wer: any of those fears justified, that is, did anyof the feared situations occur in your district?


Probe: If the respondent says yes, ask: Would you describethose situations?

29

r r.o

We've talked about concerns prior to consolidation.

D. What problems, if any, surfaced during the actual consolidationprocess, particularly in the first year?


E. Now I am going to name some possible sources of informationabout consolidation. For each source, please answer thefollowing questions:

1. Was this a source of information before consolidation foreducators in your district?

2. Was this a source of information during consolidation foreducators in your district?


a. television?

1. Before consolidation

2. During consolidation

(If yes, what information did educators receive from televisionbefore consolidation; after consolidation?)

b. radio?


2. After consolidation

(If yes, what information did educators receive from radio beforeconsolidation; after consolidation?)

c. newspaper arti.-:les?


2. After consolidation

(If yes, what information did educators receive from newspaperarticles before consolidation; after consolidation?)

d. public meetings?



(If yes, what information did educators receive from publicmeetings before consolidation; after consolidation?)

32 ,r:S

e. newsletters?



(If yes, what information did educators receive from newslettersbefore consolidation; after consolidation?)

f. letters or memos (from whom)?



(If yes, what information did educators receive frem lettersor memos before consolidation; after consolidation?)

33

g. faculty meetings?



(If yes, what information did educators receive from facultymeetings before consolidation; after consolidation?)

h. other?



(If yes, what information did educators receive from othersources before consolidation; after consolidation?)

,j 0

34

F. I will read you some ways educators have responded toconsolidation in other districts. Please tell me if any of tb2sethings occurred in your district, and describe what happened.


a. Voluntarily leaving the district in greater numbers thanusual

b. Filing grievances

c. Bringing litigation

36

d. Were there other educator responses to consolidation in yourdistrict? Please describe.

G. Please describe to me any steps your district took to addresseducators' morale problems that were associated withconsolidation.

H. Are there other issues, concerns, or solutions to consolidationproblems that you would like to add?

4. Do you have questions?

38

5. Thanks. Use the following statement.

Thank you very much for participating in this survey. Yourexperience should be of real help to educators who will befacing consolidation in the future. We expect to completethe booklet by April. Would you like a copy?

If the respondent says yes, ask: To what address would youlike us to send your copy?


39


Appendix B

Merger Chronologies

41

CHARLOTTE/MECKLENBURG COUNTY MERGER (North Carolina)

January, 1958: A Chamber of Commerce study (the Thigpen Study) recom-mended consolidation of the Charlotte City Schools and the MecklenburgCounty Schools.

October, 1959: The two boards of education appointed a committee ofthree members from each board to study consolidation. The committeerecommended consolidation.

April 21, 1959: The North Carolina General Assembly adopted a specialact providing for merger of the two school districts. The act providedthat the two school boards be merged into one twelve-member board

effective July 1, 1960. Thereafter, prior to the expiration of currentterms of office, one board position would be eliminated in December 1960,one in 1962, rnd one in 1964, to form a final nine-member board.

June 30, 1959: The voters of the city and county approved consolidationeffective July 1, 1960.

March 8, 1960: The city board of education petitioned the county boardfor merger.

March 24, 1960: The county board accepted the city board's petition.

April, 1960: The State Board of Education approved the merger.

July 1, 1960: Effective date of merger.

Source: April 21, 1959, special act by the North Carolina StateLegislature and information from the North Carolina Department ofEducation

43

NASHVILLE/DAVIDSON COUNTY MERGER (Tennessee)

1957: The Tennessee State Legislature created a Metropolitan CharterCommission for Nashville City and Davidson County to develop a charterfor merger of all governmental functions, including the two public schooldistricts.

1958: A public referendum on the charter developed by the CharterCommission was conducted. The referendum was defeated, although it waspassed by Nashville city residents.

June, 1962: In a b-,cond referendum, the voters in Nashville and DavidsonCounty voted to create the Metropolitan Government of Nashville andDavidson County, effective April 1, 1963.

June, 1962: A temporary Board of Education was established for the MetroSchool District to preside over the transition to a merged district.

July 1, 1964: Effective date of merger. The permanent school boardbecame the official governing body of the merged school district.

Source: Schmidt, et al. (1977)

44

WINSTON-SALEM/FORSYTH COUNTY MERGER (North Carolina)

December, 1962: Committees were formed by the city and countygovernments to study the problems involved in school district merger.

The state legislature passed enabling legislation to authorize areferendum by the citizens of Forsyth County, including those in the cityof Winston-Salem.

A committee was appointed to inform the public about consolidation andthe need for merger.

A referendum was held, and.the citizens voted to merge the Forsyth CountyPublic Schools and the Winston-Salem City Schools.

The referendum provided for merging the two existing boards of education(a five-member county board and an eight-member city board). The numberof positions was reduced by attrition until the current eight-memberboard was achieved.

The merged board of education appointed a new superintendent, whoselected administrative staff from the two former districts.


After merger, each assistant superintendent or department head organizeda committee to recommend necessary changes for the consolidateddepartments. The process of making all the personnel and operationalchanges continued until about July, 1966.

Source: Eugene Johnston, retired principal and administrator, ForsythCounty Public Schools

45

LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY MERGER (Kentucky)

The initial action in Louisville-Jefferson County school districtconsolidation was a law suit, filed by the Kentucky Civil Liberties Unionand the NAACP, to require annexation into the city school district of allareas outside the current school district boundaries but inside the citylimits to facilitate school desegregation.

March, 1973: The district court dismissed the suit.

July, 1973: The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declaredthe Louisville and Jefferson County school districts merged and ordered aspecific busing plan. This order was vacated two days later when theSupreme Court remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit in view of recentdecisions not requiring cross-system busing.

Meanwhile, the Louisville Board of Education was in increasing financialdifficulties and desired merger to lessen the financial burden on thecity.

February, 1974: The Louisville Board of Education passed a resolutionrequesting merger with Jefferson County Public Schools. The JeffersonCounty Board of Education denied the request.

November, 1974: Lie Louisville Board again passed a resolutionrequesting merger with Jefferson County, and the county board againdenied the request. The Louisville Board of Education then appealed tothe State Board of Education, which ordered the merger effective July 1,1975.

April, 1975: The city board of education announced publicly that it wasclosing.


July, 1975: The Court of Appeals issued a writ of mandamus directing themerged Jefferson County district to implement a full-scale desegregationplan by the opening of school in September, 1975.

September, 1975: The school districts had merged and had begun toimplement the required desegregation plan.

Source: Schmidt, et al. (1977)

46

50

KNOXVILLE/KNOX COUNTY MERGER (Tennessee)

January, 1986: City Council began exploring the idea of mergingKnoxville City Schools with the Knox County Public Schools.

February, 1986: City Council adopted a resolution creating a 26-membercommittee to develop a plan for consolidation. Adoption of the planwould require approval by the city school board, city council, countyschool board, and county commission.

March-May, 1 ?86: Subcommittee meetings were held, administrators of thetwo districts met, and plans were developed but failed to gain theapproval of all four governing bodies. The committee chair resigned, andthe committee stopped functioning.

August, 1986: Shortly before the November election, the City Council

added to the ballot amendments to the city charter deleting references toa city school district. This would have the effect of closing the citydistrict.

September-October, 1986: Panel meetings were held in the city as part ofthe election campaign.

September-October, 1986: The county school board continued to work withinterested citizens to develop a plan of consolidation. It adopted a planand influenced the county commission's approval of the plan. A cityschool board member submitted that plan to the state education commis-sioner for his approval. The state commissioner approved the plan "withreservations" concerning staff pay and benefits.

November, 1986: The city voters approved the amendments deletingreferences to a city school district. Only city voters, not those in thecounty, were able to vote on the amendments.

November, 1986-May, 1987: The two boards of education and twoadministrative staffs began to prepare for merger by developing a newtable of organization, combining inventories of equipment and textbooks,etc. Very little of the consolidation plan prepared by the county in thefall was implemented.

May, 1987: The county law director filed suit in Chancery Court for adeclaratory judgment relating to the two negotiated contracts, tenure,city pension plans, and other matters. Several other parties joined thesuit.

June, 1987: The Chancellor ruled on the suit, generally upholding the

rights of the city teachers to maintain current benefits and riding thatboth contracts be honored with the educators affected by them until theterms of their contracts expired.

July 1, 1987: Effective date of mer-,,er. The city school 'istrict ceasedto exist, and the Knox County Public Schools assumed by default theresponsibility for educating city children.

July, 1987January, 1988: Appeals of the Chancellor's decision werefiled by the county board of education to the Appellate Court. Adecision generally sustaining the Chancery Court ruling was renderedDecember 28, 1987. In January, 1988, appeals were filed to the stateSupreme Court. The appeals are pending.

Source: Records of the Knox County Education Association

r- (-)t I 4,,

48

7

Produced by

Appalachia Educational LaboratoryCharleston, West Virginia

Sponsored by

DE1Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of EducationWashington, D.C.

53

Documents

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 309 019 · DOCUMENT RESUME. RC 017 147. Maintaining Positive Educator Morale during. ... Chris Folk, associate superintendent for communications, Charlotte-Mecklenburg