The Fight for School Consolidation in Arkansas, 1946-1948

Calvin R. Ledbetter
{"title":"The Fight for School Consolidation in Arkansas, 1946-1948","authors":"Calvin R. Ledbetter","doi":"10.2307/40028071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"FORCED CONSOLIDATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS has often been looked upon as the third rail of Arkansas politics: one approaches the subject with considerable caution so as to avoid political electrocution. This issue was again placed on the public agenda, at least indirectly, by an Arkansas Supreme Court decision in November 2002, which held that the state's funding of public schools did not provide children with the \"general, suitable, and efficient\" educational system mandated by the Arkansas Constitution. Although the Lake View opinion did not require school consolidation, this method had been proposed in the past to help the state achieve a suitable and efficient system.1 The Lake View decision's broad scope seemed to require major changes in policy, utilizing a variety of innovative plans and techniques. Gov. Mike Huckabee in a \"state of the state\" address to the Arkansas General Assembly on January 14, 2003, offered a bold plan to help satisfy the requirements of Lake View. Huckabee proposed that Arkansas school districts with less than 1,500 students merge with bigger districts. He especially stressed that larger high schools could offer a richer curriculum.2 This proposal aroused great controversy, which remained at fever pitch for the next year. After heated discussions, many downward revisions of the threshold for consolidation, and frequent compromises that often unraveled, the General Assembly passed a bill that required consolidation of districts with fewer than 350 students rather than 1,500. Under the measure, the number of school districts in the state was expected to drop from 310 to 254. A companion bill changed the state's school funding formula and increased expenditures for public education.3 While Huckabee's effort accomplished limited consolidation, a similar attempt in 1966 had been completely annihilated. The trigger for consolidation proposed then was 400 students, and voters rejected the measure by a landslide vote of 115,452 (26.41 percent) in favor and 321,733 (73.59 percent) against.4 Orval Faubus, governor of Arkansas at the time, opposed the measure as did the two major gubernatorial candidates in that year's general election, Jim Johnson and Winthrop Rockefeller. Despite endorsement by the Arkansas Gazette, the proposed consolidation legislation was even defeated in Pulaski County, where 61 percent of the voters opposed the measure.5 Given the automatically hostile response to any attempt at consolidation in Arkansas, it might seem astonishing that the state's voters in 1948 passed a comprehensive school consolidation act requiring the dissolution of all school districts with fewer than 350 students. Initiated Act 1 was approved in the absence of any court order and with virtually no newspaper advertising, the main method by which campaigns were conducted at that time. And it passed despite the defeat of a very similar proposal just two years earlier. What relevance, if any, does this episode hold for the present? School consolidation had been proposed as early as the 1920s to help districts provide better educational opportunities. In the 1920s, public school education in Arkansas was in a deplorable state, with 5,000 school districts varying enormously in the quality of education they could provide. Gov. Thomas McRae in his inaugural address in 1923 said that the state faced an educational crisis in which only a \"little over half of [Arkansas's] children are in daily attendance, and the average school term is only one hundred and thirty-one days.\"6 An even harsher indictment had come from a legislative study in 1921 : \"For thousands upon thousands of children, Arkansas provides absolutely no chance. To these children, to be born in Arkansas is a misfortune and an injustice from which they will never recover and from which they will look back with bitterness when plunged, in adult life, into competition with children born in other states which are providing more liberally for their children. …","PeriodicalId":51953,"journal":{"name":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"65 1","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/40028071","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARKANSAS HISTORICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/40028071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

FORCED CONSOLIDATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS has often been looked upon as the third rail of Arkansas politics: one approaches the subject with considerable caution so as to avoid political electrocution. This issue was again placed on the public agenda, at least indirectly, by an Arkansas Supreme Court decision in November 2002, which held that the state's funding of public schools did not provide children with the "general, suitable, and efficient" educational system mandated by the Arkansas Constitution. Although the Lake View opinion did not require school consolidation, this method had been proposed in the past to help the state achieve a suitable and efficient system.1 The Lake View decision's broad scope seemed to require major changes in policy, utilizing a variety of innovative plans and techniques. Gov. Mike Huckabee in a "state of the state" address to the Arkansas General Assembly on January 14, 2003, offered a bold plan to help satisfy the requirements of Lake View. Huckabee proposed that Arkansas school districts with less than 1,500 students merge with bigger districts. He especially stressed that larger high schools could offer a richer curriculum.2 This proposal aroused great controversy, which remained at fever pitch for the next year. After heated discussions, many downward revisions of the threshold for consolidation, and frequent compromises that often unraveled, the General Assembly passed a bill that required consolidation of districts with fewer than 350 students rather than 1,500. Under the measure, the number of school districts in the state was expected to drop from 310 to 254. A companion bill changed the state's school funding formula and increased expenditures for public education.3 While Huckabee's effort accomplished limited consolidation, a similar attempt in 1966 had been completely annihilated. The trigger for consolidation proposed then was 400 students, and voters rejected the measure by a landslide vote of 115,452 (26.41 percent) in favor and 321,733 (73.59 percent) against.4 Orval Faubus, governor of Arkansas at the time, opposed the measure as did the two major gubernatorial candidates in that year's general election, Jim Johnson and Winthrop Rockefeller. Despite endorsement by the Arkansas Gazette, the proposed consolidation legislation was even defeated in Pulaski County, where 61 percent of the voters opposed the measure.5 Given the automatically hostile response to any attempt at consolidation in Arkansas, it might seem astonishing that the state's voters in 1948 passed a comprehensive school consolidation act requiring the dissolution of all school districts with fewer than 350 students. Initiated Act 1 was approved in the absence of any court order and with virtually no newspaper advertising, the main method by which campaigns were conducted at that time. And it passed despite the defeat of a very similar proposal just two years earlier. What relevance, if any, does this episode hold for the present? School consolidation had been proposed as early as the 1920s to help districts provide better educational opportunities. In the 1920s, public school education in Arkansas was in a deplorable state, with 5,000 school districts varying enormously in the quality of education they could provide. Gov. Thomas McRae in his inaugural address in 1923 said that the state faced an educational crisis in which only a "little over half of [Arkansas's] children are in daily attendance, and the average school term is only one hundred and thirty-one days."6 An even harsher indictment had come from a legislative study in 1921 : "For thousands upon thousands of children, Arkansas provides absolutely no chance. To these children, to be born in Arkansas is a misfortune and an injustice from which they will never recover and from which they will look back with bitterness when plunged, in adult life, into competition with children born in other states which are providing more liberally for their children. …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阿肯色州争取学校合并的斗争,1946-1948
学区强制合并经常被看作是阿肯色州政治的第三条轨道:为了避免政治上的触电,人们在处理这个问题时要相当谨慎。2002年11月,阿肯色州最高法院的一项裁决认为,该州对公立学校的资助没有为儿童提供阿肯色州宪法规定的“普遍、合适和有效的”教育体系,这一裁决至少间接地将这一问题再次提上了公共议程。虽然湖景的意见并不要求学校合并,但这种方法在过去曾被提出,以帮助国家实现一个合适和有效的系统湖景案的判决范围很广,似乎需要在政策上做出重大改变,利用各种创新的计划和技术。2003年1月14日,州长麦克·赫卡比在阿肯色州议会的“州情”演讲中提出了一个大胆的计划,以帮助满足湖景镇的要求。哈克比提议,学生人数少于1500人的阿肯色州学区与规模更大的学区合并。他特别强调,规模较大的高中可以提供更丰富的课程这个建议引起了很大的争议,并在接下来的一年里一直处于白热化状态。经过激烈的讨论,多次下调合并门槛,以及频繁的妥协(往往以失败告终),大会通过了一项法案,要求合并学生人数少于350人的学区,而不是1500人。根据这项措施,该州的学区数量预计将从310个减少到254个。伴随而来的一项法案改变了该州的学校拨款模式,增加了公共教育的支出虽然赫卡比的努力完成了有限的整合,但1966年的一次类似尝试却彻底失败了。当时提出的合并标准是400名学生,但最终以11.5452万名(26.41%)赞成、32.1733万名(73.59%)反对的压倒性优势被否决当时的阿肯色州州长奥瓦尔·福伯斯(Orval Faubus)和当年大选的两位主要州长候选人吉姆·约翰逊(Jim Johnson)和温斯洛普·洛克菲勒(Winthrop Rockefeller)都反对这项措施。尽管得到了《阿肯色公报》的支持,但拟议的合并立法甚至在普拉斯基县也被否决了,那里61%的选民反对这项措施考虑到阿肯色州对任何合并的尝试都会自动产生敌对反应,1948年该州选民通过了一项全面的学校合并法案,要求解散所有学生人数少于350人的学区,这似乎令人惊讶。《第1号倡议法案》是在没有任何法庭命令的情况下获得批准的,实际上也没有报纸广告,而报纸广告是当时进行竞选活动的主要方法。尽管两年前一项非常类似的提案被否决,但它还是通过了。如果有的话,这段插曲对现在有什么意义呢?学校合并早在20世纪20年代就提出了,以帮助地区提供更好的教育机会。20世纪20年代,阿肯色州的公立学校教育状况非常糟糕,5000个学区所能提供的教育质量参差不齐。州长托马斯·麦克雷(Thomas McRae)在1923年的就职演说中说,阿肯色州面临着教育危机,只有“(阿肯色州)一半多一点的孩子每天上学,平均每学期只有131天。”1921年的一项立法研究提出了更严厉的指控:“对于成千上万的孩子来说,阿肯色州绝对没有提供任何机会。对这些孩子来说,出生在阿肯色州是一种不幸和不公平,他们永远无法从中恢复过来。当他们成年后被迫与出生在其他州的孩子竞争时,他们会怀着痛苦的心情回想起来,因为其他州为他们的孩子提供了更慷慨的教育。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Cotton Plantation South since the Civil War “Dedicated People” Little Rock Central High School’s Teachers during the Integration Crisis of 1957–1958 Prosperity and Peril: Arkansas in the New South, 1880–1900 “Between the Hawk & Buzzard”:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1