Page 16 - Leadership Matters March 2013 issue.pub

16

Classrooms First Commission initiatives

result in consolidation legislation

The first reorganization bill to reach

the legislature based upon the

Classroom First Commission has

come forth with the sponsorship of

the Lieutenant Governor and the

Illinois State Board of Education

(ISBE). The two parallel bills with the

same wording are Senate Bill 1877,

sponsored by Rep. Jehan Gordon (D-

Peoria).

Keep in mind that the essential features of this new

legislation still are not mandatory and require the

consent and approval of the populace or the school

board. The intent seems to be a widening of

reorganization options for districts by removing some

of the existing requirements and including an

enrollment factor for the “automatic dissolution” of a

district that voluntarily chooses

this method of reorganization.

These bills have a lot of traction

and should pass through the

legislature

without

much

opposition. Essentially, these

bills give districts more options to

choose from, and change a few

time-honored procedures and

requirements.

For example, requiring districts to

be contiguous, or touching at

some point on a common

boundary, has been eliminated by this legislation.

Districts may utilize annexation, which is controlled by

the Regional Board of Trustees, or combination, which

is controlled by the Regional Office of Education

(ROE) and the State Superintendent, to reorganize

with several caveats. Elementary, high school and unit

districts all are included in this legislation.

The first requirement is that district offices for districts

reorganizing must be within 30 miles of each other.

This distance restriction seems reasonable even

though it seems that districts reorganizing at that

distance may have transportation and logistical issues

to solve. The other requirement is that all districts that

are contiguous with the districts utilizing this method of

reorganization but are not interested in participating in

the reorganization must document their non-interest

through a vote of its school board and then inform the

Regional Board of Trustees by letter containing

approved minutes that record the school board vote.

The reorganization method for “coop high schools” has

been altered to allow unit or high school districts to

reorganize if each of the districts has a high school

enrollment of fewer than 600 students. The same

previous requirement of these districts being

contiguous also was dropped from this legislation.

Therefore, non-contiguous districts can now utilize the

cooperative high school reorganization method.

Probably the most important change is in the

dissolution method of reorganization. Currently, if a

district has a population of fewer than 5,000 residents,

the Board of Education can petition the Regional

Board of Trustees, or by a citizen petition with a

majority of signatures, to dissolve the district. In

dissolution, the Regional Board of Trustees is

empowered to annex all or part of the district to a

neighboring district(s) in its own discretion. This is the

only reorganization method in which there is no vote of

the populace and this “automatic feature” can only be

overridden with a citizen

petition

opposing

the

dissolution received within 45

days by the Regional Board

of School Trustees with a

majority of signatures of

district residents.

The new feature of this

legislation now includes an

enrollment factor of 750.

This legislation would allow

this automatic form of

dissolution, which would not

include a vote of the populace, to be utilized by a

district with a student population of fewer than 750

students. This change would still include the

possibility of overriding the board petition with a

petition of a majority of district voters opposing this

dissolution.

Another item in the bill related to reorganization is to

allow for a delayed reorganization date in certain

circumstances when a new facility is required until

construction funding is available. This would allow

reorganizations needing a new facility to hold a

referendum vote, but delay the effective date of the

reorganization until construction funding is available for

a period of up to five years.

A delayed reorganization is often in the best interests

of districts considering reorganization due to the

considerable number of issues that districts need to

work through in the process of merging school

districts.

Dr. Bill Phillips

IASA Field

Services

Director