A Comprehensive Study on the Organization of
Kansas School Districts
Prepared for
The Kansas State Board of Education
in response to
RFP Number 00241
by
Augenblick & Myers, Inc.
Dr. John Augenblick, John Myers, and Justin Silverstein
January 10, 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In October 1999, Augenblick & Myers, Inc. (A&M), a Denver-based consulting
firm that works with state policy makers on education finance and governance issues,
was selected by the Kansas State Board of Education to conduct a study of school
district organization. The study was mandated by the Kansas Legislature in Section 10,
1999 Senate Bill 171.
A&M created an advisory panel for the study, consisting of Dr. Richard King of
the University of Northern Colorado, Dr. Chris Pipho, formerly with the Education
Commission of the States, Dr. Paul Nachtigal, former director of the Rural Challenge,
and Mr. Terry Whitney, formerly with the National Conference of State Legislatures. We
then undertook five key tasks.
1.
We completed a review of the literature related to school district
reorganization.
2.
We developed two approaches to selecting “target” districts that might
benefit from reorganization.
3.
We conducted on-site visits and interviews with representatives of 64
school districts located throughout the state.
4.
We developed three alternative ways to reorganize school districts.
5.
We identified areas where statutory changes would be needed to
implement our recommendations.
School districts are important governmental entities in this country. At the
discretion of the states, most of them have been delegated the authority to levy taxes,
incur bonded indebtedness, hire key employees, and set curriculum. Kansas, like the
other states, determines how many school districts shall exist and where their
boundaries shall be. Over time, the number of school districts has decreased
dramatically from over 120,000 nationally, to fewer than 15,000, and from over 9,000 in
Kansas, to 304. The importance of their boundaries has also diminished somewhat,
particularly in states such as Kansas that have modified their school finance procedures
so that the wealth of each district is far less critical in determining that district’s total
revenue and property tax rates. This is also true in states that have promoted open
enrollment (so that pupils can enroll in schools in districts other than the one in which
they reside). Kansas currently has 1.00% of the nation’s pupils, 1.62% of the nation’s
schools, and 2.10% of the nation’s school districts.
While the states have delegated certain powers to school districts, they maintain
both a constitutional responsibility to provide adequate and equitable education services
and an interest in assuring that pupils achieve certain education objectives. A state’s
economic and democratic future hinges on whether such objectives are met. Because
i
the state pays for a significant portion of educational services, it also has an interest in
assuring that the cost of providing these services is reasonable. These days, a state’s
interest in elementary and secondary education primarily reflects its interest in pupil
performance and per pupil spending. Little else justifies changing school district
boundaries.
The literature about school district reorganization is rather thin, consisting mostly
of economic studies of school and school district optimum size, and the arguments that
are made for and against changing the numbers of school districts in a state. While the
literature is less than definitive about school and school district size, there has long
been the view that schools, particularly high schools, need to be large enough to
provide an adequate array of academic services and extra-curricular activities. More
recently, there are those who advise that schools be small enough to assure a safe,
nurturing environment and that school districts are not so large that they become
unmanageable. While technology facilitates the provision of broader opportunities in
small, isolated schools, there is little evidence that it can fully substitute for the hands-on
presence of well-trained adults. And while evidence exists that some graduates of small
high schools go on to become very successful, that evidence tends to focus on very few
people, much the same way large schools publicize a small number of pupils who
become Merit Scholars.
A&M used two basic approaches to identify “target” school districts that might
benefit from reorganization. The first approach focuses on districts with relatively low
levels of pupil performance and relatively high levels of per pupil spending. We used a
statistical technique, regression analysis, to predict both expected levels of pupil
performance (based on combining 1998 composite reading, math, and writing scores for
Kansas statewide achievement tests) and expected levels of per pupil spending (for
instruction, administration, and plant maintenance and operation). Some people
suggested that the use of the tests was inappropriate. Because our purpose was to
focus only on some districts, the tests provide the only basis for evaluating the relative
performance of school districts, and the information is already being used to hold
districts accountable, we feel that it is appropriate to use them as the basis of identifying
those school districts where state action might be required. While there are many other
kinds of information that individual districts use to evaluate their own performance, none
provide comparable information for all districts. We used per pupil spending as the
basis for evaluating relative spending levels. Some people suggested that, since the
state controls the level of spending of school districts, and no district exceeds the level
specified by the state, it is logically impossible to identify high spending districts. Our
feeling is that, given the variation in spending that exists, some districts may be
spending more than necessary relative to the spending of other districts. The state’s
formula for distributing state aid may also permit higher spending than is necessary.
Using regression analysis allows us to see how pupil performance and per pupil
spending are influenced by the proportion of pupils eligible for free and reduced price
lunches and the wealth or enrollment level of a school district. The regression
equations accounted for 73 percent of the variation in per pupil performance and 80
ii
percent of the variation in per pupil spending. Given that those levels are high but not
perfect, we established confidence intervals around predicted levels of performance and
spending to be sure that appropriate districts were identified as being low in
performance or high in spending. Based on our analysis, we identified 28 districts that
had a combination of low pupil performance and high per pupil spending. They are
listed below in three categories.
Districts that have low pupil performance and high per pupil spending based on
regression results: Moscow Public Schools (209), West Solomon Valley Public
Schools (213), Elkhart (218), Washington Schools (222), Hanston (228), Nes Tre
La Go (301), Belle Plaine (357), Chase-Raymond (401), Hillcrest Rural Schools
(455), and Udall (463).
Districts with higher than expected per pupil spending and lower than average
pupil performance for two years: Fowler (225), Triplains (275), Elk Valley (283),
Cedar Vale (285), Herndon (317), Eastern Heights (324), Wathena (406), and
Chetopa (505).
Districts with lower than expected pupil performance in 1998, lower than average
performance in 1997, and per pupil spending above the predicted level excluding
the use of the confidence interval: Turner-Kansas City (202), Bonner Springs
(204), Mankato (278), Pleasanton (344), Oxford (358), Caldwell (360), Marysville
(364), Madison-Virgil (386), Neodesha (461), and South Haven (509).
The second approach to identify districts that might benefit from reorganization
focuses on districts that are either too small or too large, given what researchers and
practitioners believe, to offer an appropriate curriculum, extra-curricular opportunities,
and a safe, nurturing environment. This approach assumes that a high school should
serve between 100 and 900 pupils and that a district should have an enrollment of at
least 260 pupils per high school but no more than 2,925 pupils per high school in order
to be at those levels. Looking at the total enrollment of school districts and the number
of high schools they operate, we found 50 districts that are too small and 24 districts
that are too large based on these guidelines. We also identified two districts as being
so large that they might need to be reorganized by breaking them into smaller, more
manageable districts. These 76 districts have been grouped into four categories and
listed below.
Districts that are too small with only one high school: Cheylin (103), White Rock
(104), Moscow Public Schools (209), Northern Valley (212), West Solomon
Valley Schools (213), Rolla (217), Ashland (220), North Central (221), Fowler
(225), Hanston (228), West Smith County (238), Weskan (242), Palco (269),
Triplains (275), Jewell (279), West Graham-Morland (280), Elk Valley (283),
Cedar Vale (286), Grinnell Public Schools (291), Wheatland (292), Prairie
Heights (295), Sylvan Grove (299), Nes Tre La Go (301), Smoky Hill (302),
Bazine (304), Brewster (314), Golden Plains (316), Herndon (317), Eastern
iii
Heights (324), Logan (326), Burrton (369), Montezuma (371), Hamilton (390),
Paradise (399), Chase-Raymond (401), Mullinville (424), Midway Schools (433),
Hillcrest Public Schools (455), Healy Public Schools (468), Dexter (471),
Haviland (474), Copeland (476), Pawnee Heights (496), Lewis (502), and Attica
(511).
Districts that are too small with more than one high school: Barnes (223), LeroyGridley (245), Southern Cloud (334), Rural Vista (481), and Axtell (488).
Districts that are too large relative to the number of high schools they operate:
Turner-Kansas City (202), Blue Valley (229), Olathe (233), Emporia (253), Derby
(260), Haysville (261), Goddard (265), Maize (266), Salina (305), Hutchinson
Public Schools (308), Seaman (345), Newton (373), Manhattan (383), Great
Bend (428), Auburn Washburn (437), Dodge City (443), Leavenworth (453),
Garden City (457), Geary County Schools (475), Liberal (480), Hays (489),
Lawrence (497), and Kansas City (500).
Districts that are too large: Wichita (259) and Shawnee Mission Public Schools
(512).
Some of the most important activities we undertook in this study were the on-site
visits to a large number of school districts where we interviewed many district
representatives. We did this not only because it was required by contract, but also to
better understand the dynamics within the districts we identified as targets and in their
neighboring districts, which might also be involved in reorganization. We used several
criteria to select districts for on-site visits or interviews. First, every one of the 28
districts we identified using the first approach described above was placed on the list.
Second, we selected some neighboring districts of those 28 target districts. Third, we
obtained additional information about 90 school districts, including the age of their
buildings and enrollment projections, and selected some districts based on those
factors. Finally, we selected some districts based on being too large, using the second
approach to identify target districts described above. In all, we had contact with 64
districts.
We learned a number of things from our on-site visits and interviews: (1) there is
substantial resistance to consolidation because of historical, cultural and financial
reasons; (2) there is support for state reorganization in extreme cases, where there are
declining enrollments and high spending; (3) district officials justified and defended low
student performance and high spending; and (4) technology, distance learning, building
projects and innovative superintendents were considered essential for surviving
consolidation.
Once the on-site visits and interviews were completed, we began to develop
reorganization scenarios, ultimately creating three alternative approaches: (1) an
approach based on pupil performance and per pupil spending; (2) an approach based
on enrollment levels relative to number of high schools; and (3) an approach that took
iv
into consideration both of the first two approaches and resolved differences between
them based on a variety of practical considerations, including distance between
schools, school capacity (which we obtained through a survey carried out by the
Department of Education), and the information we obtained through the on-site visits
and interviews.
Tables in the report show the characteristics of target school districts and their
neighboring districts, as well as the mergers of districts associated with the three
alternative approaches to reorganization. The figures below summarize the results of
each approach for the entire state.
(1)
For the approach based on pupil performance and per pupil spending, we
identified 28 target districts. We examined all neighbors of those districts
for possible reorganization with target districts based on their pupil
performance, their per pupil spending, and their distance from the target
districts. We were unable to reorganize eight of the target districts using
those criteria. We found 20 neighboring districts that could be merged
with the 20 remaining target districts to create 20 new districts. The result
is 284 districts statewide.
(2)
For the approach based on school district size, we identified 76 target
districts. We examined all neighbor districts for the 74 districts that we felt
had high schools that were either too small or too large based on
enrollment relative to number of high schools, excess capacity of schools,
and distance between schools. We were able to reconfigure 45 of the 50
districts with high schools that are too small by merging them with 29
neighbor districts and creating 34 new districts. We were able to
reconfigure six of the 24 districts with high schools that are too large by
merging them with seven neighbor districts and creating five new districts.
In total, 51 target districts are merged with 36 neighbor districts to create
39 new districts and a total of 256 districts in the state. Some other
approach would need to be taken to address the issue in 20 of the 26
districts with large high schools and in the two large districts.
(3)
For the combined approach, we were able to reconfigure 56 target districts
with 36 neighboring districts to create 43 new districts and a total of 255
districts statewide. As with the second approach, we were unable to
resolve concerns in 21 districts by reorganization, which would require
other approaches to be taken.
In order to facilitate reorganizing school districts in Kansas, a number of changes
need to be made to the state’s statutes. A&M recommends that the legislature delegate
to the State Board of Education the power to change school district boundaries more
easily than is currently allowed. The State Board should consider boundary changes by
using three processes to assess alternative: (1) Emergency dissolution, (2) Required
boundary change planning, and (3) Review of boundary options. The emergency
v
dissolution is required for those districts that are less than 80 students in 2000, or less
than 100 students in 2001 and have declining enrollment. Those districts are required to
have a public hearing and report the results to the State Board. The State Board shall
take action to accept the district report or implement one of their own. The required
boundary change planning is for all of the other districts identified as part of the 28
original targets on Map 1 in this report. Districts would have three years to work on
improvements or recommendations, then if they are still targets would follow the
emergency dissolution process. The review of boundary options would be for all of the
other districts identified as targets in this report. They would follow the same process as
the required boundary change planning districts without the final requirement of
dissolution.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
II.
Introduction
I-1
School District Boundaries: An Overview
An Overview of the Literature
School Districts in Context
Historical Evolution of School Districts
District Consolidation
The Case for Large School Districts
The Case for Small School Districts
The Small Schools Critique and the
Diseconomies of Scale
Sher’s Critique of Large District Size
Optimal Size
Monk’s Test for District Consolidation
The Current Environment
Bibliography
III.
II-1
II-1
II-1
II-3
II-3
II-4
II-5
II-6
II-7
II-7
II-9
II-10
Alternative Procedures for Identifying Districts
that Might Benefit from Reorganization
Introduction
Identifying Target Districts Based on Pupil
Performance and Per Pupil Spending
Pupil Performance
Per Pupil Spending
Selecting “Target” Districts
Identifying Districts Based on Size of School
Selecting “Target” Districts
IV.
III-1
III-1
III-2
III-4
III-6
III-7
III-8
Interview Procedures
The On-Site Visit and Interview Process
Selecting Districts for Analysis
KASB School Board Meetings
The Research Teams
On-Site Visits
School Districts Selected
Phone Interviews
vii
IV-1
IV-1
IV-2
IV-2
IV-2
IV-3
IV-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
IV.
Interview Procedures (continued)
Large School Districts
Conclusion
What We Heard:
A Summary of the Interviews
Resistance to Consolidation
A Call for State Help
Explanations for Low Student Performance
Explanations for High Spending
Responses to Consolidation
The Reorganization Process
Conclusion
V.
Alternative Approaches to Reorganizing
School Districts in Kansas
Introduction
The First Approach to School District
Reorganization (Map 1)
The Target Districts
Identifying Appropriate Neighboring Districts
The Second Approach to School District
Reorganization (Map 2)
The Target Districts
Identifying Appropriate Neighboring Districts
The Third Approach to School District
Reorganization (Map 3)
VI.
IV-4
IV-4
IV-4
IV-4
IV-4
IV-5
IV-6
IV-7
IV-7
IV-9
IV-9
V-1
V-2
V-2
V-3
V-3
V-3
V-4
V-5
Recommendations for Statutory Changes
Current Statutes
Recommendations
Emergency Dissolution
Required Boundary Change Planning
Review of Boundary Options
Other Statutory Issues
Appendix Tables
viii
VI-1
VI-3
VI-4
VI-4
VI-5
VI-5
LIST OF TABLES
III-1
District-Weighted Kansas Statewide Statistics for Variables
Related to Per Pupil Spending and Pupil Performance in 1998-99
III-2
Pupil-Weighted Kansas Statewide Statistics for Variables
Related to Per Pupil Spending and Pupil Performance in 1998-99
III-3
District-Weighted Averages for Variables Related to
Per Pupil Spending and Pupil Performance in 1998-99 by
Quintile of Per Pupil Performance for School Districts in Kansas
III-4
Pupil-Weighted Averages for Variables Related to
Per Pupil Spending and Pupil Performance in 1998-99 by
Quintile of Per Pupil Performance for School Districts in Kansas
III-5
District-Weighted Averages for Variables Related to
Per Pupil Spending and Pupil Performance in 1998-99
by Quintile of Per pupil Spending for Instruction, Administration, and Plant M&O for School Districts in Kansas
III-6
Pupil-Weighted Averages for Variables Related to
Per Pupil Spending and Pupil Performance in 1998-99
by Quintile of Per pupil Spending for Instruction, Administration, and Plant M&O for School Districts in Kansas
III-7
Pupil-Weighted Averages for Variables Related
to Per Pupil Spending and Pupil Performance in
1998-99 for Three groups of Kansas School Districts
Identified as Low Performing and High Spending
V-1
Data Related to the Selection of Neighboring Districts to
Merge with the Target Districts Associated with Map 1
V-2
Districts Involved in Reconfiguration Where Target
Districts are Those with Relatively Low Performance
and Relatively High Spending (Map 1)
V-3
Data Related to the Selection of Neighboring Districts to
Merge with the Target Districts Associated with Map 2
ix
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
V-4(A)
Districts Involved in Reconfiguration Where Target Districts
are Those with Schools Considered to be Too Small Based
on Enrollment Relative to Number of High Schools (Map 2)
V-4(B)
Districts Involved in Reconfiguration Where Target Districts
are Those with Schools Considered to be Too Large Based
on Enrollment Relative to Number of High Schools or Where
the District Itself Is Considered to be Too Large (Map 2)
V-5
Districts Involved in Reconfiguration Where Target Districts
are Those Identified in Map 1 and Map 2 and Some Issues
that Arose in Making Those Maps are Resolved (Map 3)
V-6
Numbers of Districts that are Reconfigured in
Association with Map 1, Map 2, and Map 3
Appendix 1
Enrollment Data for All Districts
Appendix 2
Performance Data for All Districts
Appendix 3
1998-99 Spending Data for All Districts
Appendix 4
Enrollment, Capacity and Year Built for Schools
Appendix 5
Self Reported Condition of Buildings for the 90
Districts that Were Asked to provide Additional Information
x
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
In October 1999 Augenblick & Myers, Inc. (A&M) signed a contract with the
Kansas State Board of Education to conduct an analysis of school district organization.
The study was undertaken pursuant to Section 10 of 1999 Senate Bill No. 171, which
mandated that a consultant be employed to gather and analyze information, conduct onsite visits in school districts, and develop a comprehensive plan for the organization of
school districts so that the school system could operate efficiently and effectively. We
spent the last 15 months studying school districts in Kansas in order to comply with the
requirements of the State Board of Education and the Legislature. The purpose of this
report is to describe our work, including the procedures we used to collect and evaluate
information, the alternative approaches we developed to address some of the issues we
identified, and the statutory changes that would need to be made in order to implement
those approaches.
School districts play an important role in American society. Although the states
have the constitutional responsibility of providing public elementary and secondary
education, they have delegated the authority to manage the way education services are
delivered to school districts, which they can create or dissolve as they see fit. School
districts have specific powers, which vary from state to state, that range from levying
taxes and incurring bonded indebtedness to hiring staff and setting curriculum. Over
time, however, the roles of school districts have changed somewhat as states, including
Kansas, have placed constraints on the ability of school districts to generate revenue
and have permitted students to enroll in schools in districts other than the ones in which
they reside.
Over the last 100 years, the number of school districts has decreased
dramatically, from more than 120,000 to less than 15,000. This change reflects a
variety of trends, including the creation of unified, K-12 districts, rather than elementary
or high school districts, and the desire to have entities that provide a broad array of
instructional and ancillary services in an efficient manner. As anyone knows who has
even contemplated changing the way school districts are organized, the topic is a
controversial one. The states have approached the organization of school districts in
very different ways with some states having only a few and some making them coterminal with counties, while others have large numbers of districts that may be
independent of any other government entities. School districts are symbols of localism
and they play an important role in the economies of some communities. When change
occurs, it tends to cause great consternation and, as we discovered working in Kansas,
people remember those changes for a long time after they have taken place.
There are a variety of reasons for why a state might choose to change the way
its school districts are organized. The state might decide that some schools or school
districts are too small, or too large, to provide services efficiently. It might decide that
I-1
school districts should share their boundaries with other political jurisdictions, such as
towns or counties, in order to strengthen the relationship between the way education
services and other social services are provided. The state might decide that some of
the boundary lines of school districts are so “odd” that they should be changed so that
they are straight, or follow natural landmarks, or so they do not cross county lines. We
have heard all of these, and other reasons, as possible justifications to reorganize
school districts in Kansas. In fact, in 1998-99, Kansas enrolled 1.00 percent of the
pupils in the nation but had 1.62 percent of the schools and 2.10 percent of the school
districts in the United States.
In our view, the ultimate responsibility of the state is to assure that education
services are provided effectively. Effectiveness could mean a lot of different things. It
might mean that pupils, schools, or school districts are performing at a high level. It
might mean that school districts are spending at a reasonable level, that schools are not
so small or so large that they incur extremely high costs, and that school facilities are
being utilized appropriately. And it might mean that school districts provide an
appropriate array of services so that pupils are exposed to both a broad curriculum and
appropriate extra-curricular activities. If a state found that education were not being
provided effectively in certain school districts, the state would be justified in examining
the situation carefully and possibly reorganizing school districts to produce the desired
results. In fact, we believe that there are few other justifications for school
reorganization.
Therefore, we viewed the purpose of our work as identifying situations in which
education is not being provided effectively in Kansas — that is, pupil performance is
relatively low while per pupil spending is relatively high, or schools are smaller or larger
than what practitioners believe to be appropriate — and determining whether school
district reorganization could reasonably be expected to change the situation under
circumstances where it would be practical.
We completed a variety of tasks in order to gather background information,
obtain and analyze data, and organize findings and recommendations.
1.
We created an advisory panel to review our progress. The panel included
Dr. Richard King, professor of education administration at the University of
Northern Colorado; Dr. Chris Pipho, former Senior Fellow at the Education
Commission of the States; Dr. Paul Nachtigal, former National Director of
the Rural Challenge; and Mr. Terry Whitney, former Senior Policy
Specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures.
2.
We undertook a thorough review of the literature about school size and
school district consolidation.
3.
We conducted an analysis of pupil performance and per pupil spending in
order to identify those districts that should be targets of state scrutiny due
to lower than expected performance and higher than expected spending.
I-2
4.
We identified other criteria, such as district size, change in enrollment, and
age of buildings, that might serve as the basis of identifying other districts
that could be the target of state scrutiny and that were used to select
districts from which we needed to gather more data than were routinely
available or that we wanted to contact.
5.
We collected additional data, including enrollment projections and
information about the condition of school buildings, from target districts
and some of their neighbors.
6.
We conducted on-site visits to some school districts and held meetings
with representatives of other school districts and, in conjunction with those
meetings, made presentations to every regional meeting of the Kansas
School Boards Association in the Spring of 2000.
7.
We worked with the Kansas Department of Education to collect data on
the capacities of school buildings.
8.
We obtained mapping software that allowed us to plot schools, school
district boundaries, and county lines for Kansas. The software also made
it possible for us to measure distances between any pairs of schools.
9.
We conducted additional on-site visits in several school districts -- some
with large high schools, one that we considered to be a very large district,
and one with a group of districts that were all target districts in the same
county.
10.
We met with representatives of several state level education associations
to discuss our progress.
11.
We created three alternative approaches to reorganize school districts
based on different ways of selecting target districts, reviewing data for
neighbor districts, and taking into consideration some of the information
we gathered from visits and meetings.
This report is organized as follows: Section II is the review of the literature. In
Section III, we describe the various procedures we used to select target districts.
Section IV discusses the on-site visits and interviews. In Section V, we present three
alternative ways of reorganizing school districts. The statutory changes required to
implement the recommendations are discussed in Section VI. A series of appendices
present data for every school district in the state.
I-3
Chapter II
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES: AN OVERVIEW
This section of the report describes how school districts in the United States have
evolved into governing bodies and why they have changed over time. In doing so, the
report will offer a review of the research and current trends for reorganizing school
districts.
An Overview of the Literature
This section offers a brief overview of the research literature on school district
organization. This is not a literature review in the traditional sense. Most of the
research concerning school districts is interwoven within (1) broad philosophical
educational issues, (2) individual schools and what goes into them, (3) people’s likes
and dislikes for various approaches, (4) discussions of ideal class and school size, and
(5) the finance and governance of schools. Instead, the primary focus of this section
will be the organizational structures and optimal size of school districts. In doing so, we
will highlight historical developments, influential research, authors, popular writings,
case studies and the structural forces that have affected school districts.
School Districts in Context
A school district is one of four types of governmental entities that exists below the
state government in the U.S. that provide general and specific services to people in a
geographic region. It is not unusual for people to be served by overlapping government
entities and jurisdictions simultaneously. In 1992, there were 3,043 counties and
35,962 municipalities, townships, or towns that provided general government services.
At the same time, there were 33,131 special district governing bodies, focusing on the
availability of higher education (through community colleges), recreation service, control
of natural resources, fire protection and other services. 14,556 school districts oversaw
education services for elementary and secondary schools (Bureau of the Census, 1993,
Table 466).
Historical Evolution of School Districts
School districts have evolved as the public interest in education has expanded in
the last 300 years. It is often expressed as a Jeffersonian ideal, that (state) government
is primarily responsible for providing education for its citizens; however, in American
colonies, education was primarily the function of the family or church. 18th Century
education was characterized by enormous variation:
II-1
... there were individual teachers of reading, writing, ciphering, grammar,
bookkeeping, surveying, navigation, fencing, dancing, music, modern languages,
embroidery, and every conceivable combination of these and other subjects;
teachers taught part time and full time, by day and by evening, in their homes, in
other people’s homes, in rented rooms, in churches and meetinghouses, in
abandoned buildings, and in buildings erected especially for their use; (teachers)
were self-employed and employed by others (acting as individuals or through
self-constituted, self-perpetuating, or elected boards; and they were paid with
funds obtained from employers, patrons, subscriptions, lotteries, endowments,
tuition rates, and taxes (Cremin, 1970, pp. 499-500).
As early as 1642, a Massachusetts statute required towns to make “some
provisions for giving the rudiments of learning to those children who did not get them at
home” (Beard, 1944, p. 64). In 1692, the Massachusetts general court required that all
towns of 100 families or more have a grammar school; and a few years later, the court
required a full-time instructor (Cremin, 1970, p. 524).
As the country expanded, conflicts arose between towns and families that
demanded access to schools in the precincts and wards where they lived. Cremin
(1970) observes:
such disputes were indicative of the extent to which the school was looked upon
as integral to an orderly community, and the right to maintain one essential to
community integrity. Indeed, petitions to the general court for the right to form
new towns often based their appeal on the need for better services (p. 525).
Education developed differently in different regions of the country, reflecting their
particular economic, social, geographic, and fiscal characteristics. What worked in New
England communities, for example, did not work on the plantations in the South. As
states were established, they wrote their own constitutions specifically mentioning
education, even though the U.S. Constitution did not mention education.1 Although
some state constitutions were more explicit than others (about the expectations for
public education), most required that their state provide “thorough,” “uniform,” efficient,”
or “free” education services.
State legislatures eventually delegated their authority and constitutional
responsibility to school districts, which governed, and in some cases, maintained the
fiscal responsibility for public schools (e.g., eleven states refer to local school boards in
their constitutions; see Education Commission of the States, June 1999). Many school
districts were established coterminous with counties and municipalities, while others
were created with a different set of boundaries. Some school districts were
“independent,” with the authority to collect tax revenues, while others were “dependent,”
or fiscally controlled by some government entity. The states eventually replaced the
1 Although the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 declared that “schools and the means of education shall
forever be encouraged.” The ordinance required that a section of land in every township be devoted to
the support of schools.
II-2
laws permitting states, cites, counties and towns to levy taxes for schools (with voter
approval), with state and local boards of education that were required to provide free
and compulsory education, at least at the elementary level (Beard, 1944, p. 219). By
the middle of the 19th Century, educational governance was in the hands of locally
elected boards, which established curriculum, hired employment staff, selected
textbooks, located physical space, and granted diplomas to graduates.
In the 20th Century, the modern model for resolving complex and political
education issues, such as who should be educated, how education should be
organized, and who should pay for it (particularly in urban high schools) is the “incipient
bureaucracy” model, says Michael Katz (1971). Bureaucracies emerged as a way of
providing a consistent set of services by qualified experts to pupils at a low cost. As
school boards decreased, ward and precincts were abolished, the reliance on “experts”
increased, and the role of state departments of education grew, particularly in terms of
professional certification (Education Commission of the States, Nov. 1999, pp. 9-11).
In sum, school districts emerged as a way of providing educational services that were
conveniently located near pupils (in elementary schools), thereby fulfilling state
constitutional requirements.
District Consolidation
The number of school districts has decreased sharply in the last century. Since
the beginning of the 1900's, the number of school districts, nationwide, has declined by
87 percent from 117,108 school districts to 15,367 in 1992 (Walberg, 1993). 2
As of the United States, Kansas has decreased dramatically its number of school
districts. In 1896 Kansas had 9,284 school districts (Kansas Biennial Report, 1964); by
1966-67, this number of school districts had dropped to 348. There are 304 school
districts in Kansas presently.
The Case for Large School Districts
The decline in the number of school districts can be explained by a major
ideological shift in the U.S. after World War II, toward industrialized, economically
efficient, highly productive organizations. Hence, corporations served as models for
school reorganization and consolidation, with a decidedly bureaucratic bent (Education
Commission of the States, Jan. 1999). The proponents of the rapid consolidation
movement argued that large schools could use their resources more efficiently and
achieve “economies of scale,” a theory that focuses on the increased savings through
reduced redundancy and increased resource strength as schools and school districts
get bigger (e.g., one large school can operate more cheaply and efficiently than two
smaller ones). Economies of scale were further applied to the cost of “producing” a
given level of student achievement. The logic was that savings would accrue as costs
were spread over a larger pupil base. These savings could then be applied toward
II-3
developing a more comprehensive and specialized programs of instruction, with greater
quality, for more students with differing interests and abilities.
Early research supported the idea that larger school districts could operate more
efficiently than small districts. One of the leading proponents of larger schools and
economies of scale theory was former Harvard President James Bryant Conant. In his
influential 1959 book (financed by the Carnegie Corporation of New York in 1957), The
American High School Today, Conant indicated that larger high schools (those over 750
students) were more efficient and could offer a more comprehensive curriculum of
greater quality and lower cost than smaller schools. Larger schools could afford more
specialized teachers, counselors, classes and activities. Students attending large
schools could benefit from increased course offerings and participate more in
extracurricular activities. Thus, Conant called for the elimination of high schools having
fewer than 100 students in the graduating class (Sher, 1986, p. 29), favoring larger
units for “comprehensive” schools. Conant’s conclusions reinforced a 1948 study by the
National Commission on School District Reorganization, which favored large school
districts because small school districts had difficulty attracting and retaining qualified
teachers (Hughes and Bass, 1994, p. 9).
From the beginning of the century to the early 1960s, research supporting large
schools and districts (and the economies of scale theory) dominated the education
research and popular writings. This research focuses on educational “inputs” (e.g., the
number of teachers, professional staff, salary levels, availability and materials). Since
the 1960s, support for the economy of scale theory would lead policymakers and
educators to favor the rapid consolidation movement.
The Case for Small School Districts
By 1964, the rapid consolidation movement was challenged by an insurgent
movement for smaller schools and smaller school districts. In Big School, Small School:
High School Size and Student Behavior, published in 1964, Barker and Gump found
that only a few students actively participated in activities in large schools; by contrast,
students in small schools engaged in extracurricular activities in a greater proportion
(see Swenson & King, 1997 p. 367). Although large schools offered more varieties of
subjects, Baker and Gump found that pupils in large schools took fewer electives
proportionally than students in smaller schools. Barker and Gump were not explicit as
to the ideal size of a given school, but their book began challenging the conventional
wisdom and popular ideology of the time, that “bigger is better.” Specifically, they
challenged the economies of scale theory, and placed more emphasis on the “outputs”
of school districts, such as student achievement, participation and social relationships.
After conducting a nationally comprehensive study, in A Place Called School (1964),
Goodlad concluded that it is not impossible to have a good large school, but it is difficult;
the burden of proof on large schools is to show what curricular benefits they have that
small schools do not.
II-4
Barker and Gump’s analysis spawned a growing reform movement for smaller
schools, which has gained support presently in research and popular writings. The
small schools literature began with large-scale qualitative studies in the 1980s and
1990s, reinforcing a number of literature syntheses and reviews establishing the
effectiveness of small schools. These studies built an “impressive case for
“smallness”(Raywid, 1996). In their reviews of the literature, Raywid (1997) and Cotton
(1996) found smaller schools to be more personal, equitable, participatory, “communityoriented” (see Nachitgal, 1992), safer, and conducive to student learning. By contrast,
Klonsky (1995) and Raywid (1995) found that large schools have lower grade averages,
lower test scores, higher dropout rates, and more problems with violence.2 In his review
of the literature, Klonsky (1998) found a compelling body of research showing that
female, minority (especially, African American and Latino students), low socioeconomic,
and special needs students benefit from smaller school units (charters, minischools,
houses) than larger ones.
The Small Schools Critique and The Diseconomies of Scale
Small school reformers typically cast their arguments in “big” versus “small”
schools, but almost always ignore or diminish the costs of maintaining small schools
and districts. Further, they fail to address the central question: when is a school or
district too small to produce effective student learning. Lee and Smith (1997) warn that
the ideological shift toward “smallness” is proceeding without research to support it,
which might result in a number of schools (and school districts) that are too small to
produce effective student learning, particularly for minority and disadvantaged students.
As for cost, most proponents of small schools acknowledge that spending
increases per pupil in small school districts, at least initially. However, they argue that
spending should not be based on per pupil spending, but on the number of graduating
students, which they argue is higher than large school districts.
In addition, they argue that empirical evidence supporting the economies of scale
theory is weak. The savings projected by the school consolidation movement has not
materialized because large schools often expand their administrative staff to manage
bureaucratic needs and transportation costs (particularly in rural areas), thereby
offsetting savings (Chambers, 1981). When states give more funding to schools, they
also increase the regulations and legislation, resulting in a bureaucratic system of
education complete with inefficiencies (Walberg, 1993, p. 123). Walberg refers to this
condition as “diseconomies of scale,” which occur when the per unit costs increase as a
greater number of units are served. Like Walberg, Coleman and LaRocque (1984)
argue that it is not clear that the economies of scale theory applies to school districts (in
British Columbia) because the administrative costs are a relatively small portion of a
district’s overall costs (p. 22). Moreover, the relationship between district size and the
2
Raywid (2000) and other scholars have suggested that the large “alienating” size of Columbine High
School, over 1600 students, might well have been a factor in the school shooting tragedy.
II-5
resource availability is inconsistent across socioeconomic communities (Friedkin &
Neocochea, 1988). Although districts in low income areas have access to more
resources than smaller school districts, critics point out that in such populations there is
a higher incidence of “exceptional problems” that contribute to lower achievement (Lee
& Smith, 1997, p. 207).
An additional body of literature argues that bigger districts lead to bureaucracies,
which negatively impact student performance. In his review of student test scores
among states, Walberg (1993) found that higher achieving states have smaller districts,
smaller schools, and smaller state shares of school costs (p. 115). Carnoy and
MacDonnell (1990) found that large organizational structures limit local control for
teachers and principles to make decisions to improve student performance.
Sher’s Critique of Large District Size
In spite of the rapid consolidations throughout the 1900s, there was little
evidence that school districts actually operate more efficiently presently (Management
Analysis and Planning Associates, 1996, p. 21). Yet a 1986 report by the North
Carolina Department of Public Instruction sparked criticism after it recommended that
states consolidate, so that there was no more than one school per district per county,
and all districts had at least 5,000 students (Sher, 1986, p. 8).
In response to the North Carolina recommendations, in 1986 researcher
Jonathan Sher examined student achievement in large and small districts, specifically
analyzing the student performance data (SAT, ACT, and graduation rates) that was
available at the time nationwide. (Today the flaws in using these indicators of student
performance are well known.) Students’ scores on the SAT were compared among
states. The study found that on average, states that had districts smaller than 5,000
students scored higher on the tests than states with larger districts (Sher, 1986 p. 21).
States that ranked in the top ten percent on SAT scores, were in the top ten percent of
per pupil expenditures (ibid.).
Sher’s study also examined how students in comparative states performed on
the ACT. The study found that four of the five states whose students scored the highest
on the ACT had districts averaging less than 2,000 pupils, and none had an average
school district size above 3,000 (Sher, 1986, p. 22). Conversely, the average district
size of states whose students performed poorly on the ACT were five times greater than
that of the top-ranked states (ibid.).
Sher also compared graduation rates among states. States that had the highest
graduation rates had far smaller schools and school districts than states that had the
lowest graduation rates (Sher, 1986, p. 23). Sher cautioned that these results did not
prove that having small, sub-county school districts produced better student learning.
But Sher’s evidence directly challenged the validity of the North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction’s recommendation that school districts having at least 5,000 students
II-6
were necessary to achieve the best student outcomes (Sher, 1986, p. 24).
In another study, Sher also compared student performance among large and
small districts in Nebraska. This study similarly found that on average, larger districts
had higher dropout rates than smaller districts (Sher, 1988, p. 22). The ACT scores
were also higher in small districts than in large districts (Sher, 1988, p. 24).
A study of student performance among school districts in Colorado found similar
results. Student average test scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills in smaller districts
outperformed those in larger districts, with the difference even more pronounced the
higher the grade levels (Colorado Department of Education, 1995, p. 9). Furthermore,
in 1994, the Colorado graduation rate for the 25 smallest school districts was 95.1
percent, while the graduation rate for the entire state was 78.8 percent (Colorado
Department of Education, 1995, p. 10). Thus, students in smaller school districts are
performing better and graduating at a higher rate than those in larger school districts in
Colorado.
Optimal Size
Rather than defining an ideal size for schools and districts (often degenerating
into debates between large versus small, or specialization versus dehumanization),
recently researchers have attempted to define the optimal school district size. Optimal
school size has been an enduring issue for educational policy, and meaningful and
influential distinctions for policymakers (See Lee & Smith, 1997, p. 219). Optimal
school district size refers to (1) how the school district size produces optimum economic
efficiency (an economic criteria, or inputs) and (2) how the size of the district affects
student performance and the equity of student learning (a sociological criteria, or
outputs).
Researchers have attempted to define the optimal school district size, but the
numbers vary widely. For example, studies have recommended districts as large as
50,000 pupils while others have targeted districts as low as 500 (Monk and Kadamus,
1995, p. 30). Some argue that districts and schools could never be too small; good
school districts come in all kinds and sizes (Sher, 1988, p. 25); or, it depends on the
situation and circumstances. Such ambivalence led some researchers to conclude that
there is no optimal school district size.
Monk’s Test for District Consolidation
In determining whether school districts should be consolidated, Monk (1992)
describes the indicators of a quality of education offered by a school or a district. These
factors include: learning outcome indicators (i.e., standardized tests given to students to
measure their abilities) and schooling process indicators, i.e., measuring inputs such as
teacher experience, training, class size, and courses offered (Monk, 1992, p. 39). These
II-7
factors can be used to examine and evaluate how well a district is doing, and whether
consolidation is necessary. As for economies of scale, like Conant, Monk argues that
larger districts and schools are less expensive to operate and offer more courses for
student learning. For Monk, however, size alone does not determine the quality of
courses offered (Monk, 1992, p. 41).
Monk and Kadamus (1995) outline conditions or indicators that a district may not
be performing at the desired level. These conditions include: a district is spending more
than is necessary to achieve a given result (that is, higher test scores), a district is
producing the “wrong” mix of results; a district is producing results at the “wrong” level.
According to Monk and Kadamus (1995), states must define a set of indicators that can
identify districts with these types of productivity problems. States must also establish
benchmarks so that judgments can be made about the educational outcomes that are
observed (Monk and Kadamus, 1995, p. 34).
In addition to Monk’s test, the literature on optimal school size may provide
additional guidelines in determining optimal school district size, although the
relationships of school and district size are often confused, particularly for high schools
(many districts operate as a single high school).
A widely held assumption is that elementary schools should be smaller than
middle and high schools because elementary schools provide intimate relations and
supportive environments for young children. (High school students desire more course
offerings.) Based on a review of 103 studies, Cotton (1996) found the optimal size for
an elementary school is between 300 and 400 students.
The research focusing on optimal school size for middle schools is in its infancy;
but a 1992 survey of middle school principals reported that the optimal school size for
middle schools is 400 to 599 students.
After analyzing the NELS database of 9,812 students, (8th through 12th graders),
Lee and Smith (1997) found that schools were most effective for student learning and
equitable learning (across differing socioeconomic levels and concentration of minority
students) when they enroll between 600 and 900 students. Importantly, in schools
smaller than 600, students learn less. This is an important finding because, the authors
conclude, there are schools too small to produce effective student learning.
Similarly, Turning Points, an influential report on school reform, written in 1989 by
Carnegie Foundation, as well as the National Association of Secondary School
Principals recommended that high schools enroll no more than 600 students. The ideal
high school of 600 students seems to be a very popular recommendation, but close
scrutiny of these readings reveals little empirical report for these recommendations.
II-8
The Current Environment
Today schools are under more pressure to improve against a backdrop of
funding. Improvement is expected regardless of whether funding keeps up with
inflation. This places the future of school districts in question.
First, most of the school improvement literature points to the importance of
schools, their expectations, and how they use their resources, as critical elements —
almost nothing has emerged in research that focuses on school district level leadership
or management that is associated with helping pupils perform at higher levels; states
are already organizing pupil performance information by school site.
Second, much of the discussion about how to improve school funding suggests
that whatever authority school districts currently have over the amount of resources
available to them is likely to diminish as states take more control over gross taxing and
spending decisions. There is talk in some quarters of states distributing most, if not all,
state aid directly to schools, bypassing districts.
Third, while school districts may be given more control over how they spend their
resources, some state policymakers are placing spending decisions in the hands of
schools, principals and teachers. In this scenario, school board spending would be
relegated to administration, plant maintenance and operation, or ancillary services
including personnel, accounting, and food services. School districts might even be
forced to compete with other districts to provide such services. Moreover, the
expansion of smaller educational units (charter schools, schools-within-schools,
minischools, and others), and possible school vouchers (even if only in urban districts)
may further reduce school district authority.
School districts are unlikely to disappear. However, as this overview of school
boards suggests, the role and function of school districts will change. They may look
more like current multi-district cooperative service boards in the future, providing
technical assistance, comparative information, and administrative services done more
efficiently by a central agency.
II-9
Bibliography
Barker, R. and Gump, P. Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student
Behavior (1964).
Beard, C. and Beard, M. Basic History of the United States (1944).
Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, (1993).
Carnoy, M. and MacDonnell, J. School District Restructuring in Santa Fe, New Mexico
(1990).
Carnegie Foundation. Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century
(1989).
Chambers, J.G. “An Analysis of School Size Under a Voucher System.” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis. (1981).
Coleman, P. and LaRocque, L. “Economies of Scale Revisited: School District
Operating Costs in British Columbia, 1979-82.” Journal of Education Finance (Summer
1984), pp. 22-35.
Colorado Department of Education. “A Report on Colorado School District
Organization.” (1995).
Conant, J.B. (1959). The American High School Today. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cotton, K. “Affective and Social Benefits of Small-Scale Schooling.” ERIC Digest
(December 1996).
Cremin, L. American Education, The Colonial Experience, 1607-1783 (1970).
Education Commission of the States [1]. “The Invisible Hand of Ideology: Perspectives
from the History of School Governance” (January 1999).
Education Commission of the States [2]. “State Constitutions and Public Education
Governance” (June 1999).
Education Commission of the States [3]. “Governing America’s Schools: Changing the
Rules: Report of the National Commission on Governing America’s Schools.”
(November 1999).
Friedkin, N. and Neocochea, J. “School System Size and Performance: A Contingency
Perspective.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (Vol. 10, 1988).
II-10
Goodlad, J. I. A Place Called School (1984).
Hughes, M.F. and Bass, G. R. “Multi-phased Study of an Economy of Scale Weight
Factor for Low Enrollment School Districts in the State of Kansas.” (1994).
Kansas Biennial Report (1964).
Katz, M. B. Class, Bureaucracy & Schools (1971).
Klonsky, M. (1998). Small Schools: The Numbers Tell a Story. Third Ed. Chicago:
University of Illinois at Chicago.
Klonsky, M. (1995). Small Schools: The Numbers Tell a Story. University of Illinois.
Lee,V.E. & Smith, J.B. “High School Size: Which Works Best and for Whom?”
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (Vol. 19 1997).
Management Analysis and Planning Associates. “Nevada School District Organization
and Control: Meeting the Challenges of Growth and Diversity.” (1996).
Monk, D. H. “Modern Conceptions of Educational Quality and State Policy Regarding
Small Schooling Units.” Center for School Change: Source Book on School and District
Size, Cost and Quality (1992), pp. 35-49.
Monk, D. H. and Kadamus, James A. “The Reform of School District Organizational
Structure.” Advances in Educational Productivity (Volume 5, 1995), pp. 27-44.
Nachtigal P. “Remapping the Terrain: School Size, Cost, and Quality.” Center for
School Change: Source Book on School and District Size, Cost, and Quality (1992), pp.
53 -71.
Raywid, M. and Oshiyama, L. “Musing in the Wake of Columbine: What Can Schools
Do?” Phi Delta Kappan (Vol. 81, 6, 2000).
Raywid, M. “The Current Literature on Small Schools.” ERIC Digest (1997).
Raywid, M. “Taking Stock: The Movement to Create Mini-Schools, Schools-WithinSchools, and Separate Small Schools.” ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
(1996).
Raywid, M. “The Subschools/Small Schools Movement—Taking Stock.” Paper
commissioned by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. (1995).
Rogers, B. “Small is Beautiful” Center for School Change: Source Book on School and
District Size, Cost, and Quality (1992), pp. 97-116.
II-11
Sher, J. P. [1] Heavy Meddle: A Critique of the North Carolina Department of Public
Instructions Plan to Mandate School District Mergers Throughout the State (1986).
Sher, J. P. [2] Class Dismissed: Examining Nebraska’s Rural Education Debate.
(1988).
Swenson, A.D. and King, R.A. School Finance: It’s Economics and Politics (1997).
Walberg, H. J. “On Local Control: Is Bigger Better?” School and District Size, Cost, and
Quality (1993).
II-12
Chapter III
ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING DISTRICTS
THAT MIGHT BENEFIT FROM REORGANIZATION
Introduction
Based on our view of the state’s role in establishing school districts, and our
review of the literature about school district organization, we feel that the most
appropriate rationale for state action must be based on three factors: (1) the level of
pupil performance, in which the state is explicitly interested, because it is the foundation
of democratic government and the state’s economic development; (2) the level of per
pupil spending, in which the state has an interest because it provides state aid that
accounts for a significant portion of those expenditures; and (3) the ability of school
districts to provide an appropriate curriculum and ancillary activities, in which the state
has an interest primarily because of the nexus with pupil performance.
We developed two primary approaches to identify school districts in Kansas that
should be reorganized. The first approach is based specifically on analysis of both pupil
performance and per pupil spending and is designed to identify districts that are
relatively low in performance and relatively high in spending. The second approach is
based on the relationship between the size of schools and districts and the ability of
districts to provide services when they are either too small or too large.
Identifying Target Districts Based on Pupil Performance and Per Pupil Spending
The first approach is designed to focus attention on a set of “target” districts in
which performance is relatively low and spending is relatively high. In order to examine
relative performance, we use the results of the statewide tests that have been
developed in the past few years even though several people told us that their
understanding was that those tests were not developed for the specific purpose of
comparing one district to another. Our feeling is that, since the tests provide the only
basis of evaluating the relative performance of school districts, the information is
already being used to hold districts accountable (given that results are published), and
because our purpose is to focus only on some districts, it is appropriate to use them as
the basis for identifying those places where state action is required. While there are
many other kinds of information that individual districts use to evaluate their own
performance, none provide comparable information for all districts. We used per pupil
spending for instruction, administration, and plant maintenance and operation (M&O) as
the basis of evaluating relative spending levels even though some people suggested
that since the state controlled their level of spending, and no district exceeds the level
specified by the state, it is logically impossible to identify high spending districts. Our
feeling is that, given the variation in spending that exists, some districts may be
spending more than they need to relative to the spending of other districts and/or the
III-1
state’s formula for distributing state aid may permit higher spending than is necessary.
Pupil Performance
We were able to obtain average pupil performance data for 1997 and 1998 for all
304 school districts in Kansas -- data were for the composite reading index, the math
power composite, and the writing composite. We combined the average scores for
each district into a single score by transforming district average raw scores for each test
into “standard” scores (sometimes called “z-scores”), which indicate how many standard
deviations the district average raw score is from the statewide average score for a
particular test. The use of standard scores allowed us to add the scores of the three
tests together despite the fact that the raw scores use different scales for measurement
(the assumption in adding the standard scores together is that each test is valued
equally). These scores generally range from -4.0 to +4.0; a district with the statewide
average score on all three tests would have a standard score of 0.0; if a district had an
unusually high or low average score for all three tests, the combined standard score
could be lower than -4.0 or higher than +4.0.
We found some variation across all school districts in raw scores and standard
scores, which are shown in Table III-1 (where they are district weighted) and Table III-2
(where they are pupil weighted). We show figures weighted in two different ways, by
district or by pupils, because it can make a difference and because there are
reasonable justifications for looking at the data using either approach to weighting. We
tend to favor the pupil-weighted approach, meaning each pupil is weighted equally.
Looking at Table III-2, where scores have been weighted by enrollment, it is clear that
there was not much variation across districts in composite scores: two thirds of all pupils
were enrolled in districts where reading scores varied from 59.8 to 68.6, where math
scores varied from 45.1 to 56.3, and where writing scores varied from 3.22 to 3.60.
To better understand the relationship between pupil performance and district
characteristics, we created five groups of districts, called quintiles, based on pupil
performance, which are shown in Table III-3 (where quintiles have similar numbers of
districts) and Table III-4 (where quintiles have similar numbers of pupils). Looking at
quintiles with similar numbers of pupils (Table III-4), there were 27 districts, enrolling
87,113 pupils, in the lowest performance quintile (where the combined standard [”z”]
scores were less than -2.50) while there were 43 districts, enrolling 89,133 pupils, in the
highest performing quintile (where the combined standard [”z”] scores were greater than
+2.58). The average performance of each quintile is shown in row (8), rising from 3.716 in the lowest performing quintile to +3.531 in the highest performing. In general,
higher performance was associated with higher total spending [see row (1)] and with
higher spending for instruction [see row (2)]. There was no obvious relationship
between pupil performance and either spending for administration [see row (3), where
spending varied across the quintiles but not in a systematic way] or spending for plant
M&O [see row (4), where spending was about the same across the quintiles].
III-2
Quintiles that had higher combined standard scores had higher raw scores for all
three composites [see rows (5), (6), and (7)] and higher standard (“z”) scores for all
three composites [see rows (9), (10), and (11)]. While higher performing districts
tended to have lower proportions of pupils from low-income families [see row (16)],
there was no clear relationship between performance and district wealth (although the
highest performing districts had greater wealth than the lowest performing districts).
There was also no relationship between performance and local tax effort (which was
highest in both the lowest and highest performing quintiles) or school district size (where
the highest and lowest performing districts were larger than those with middle levels of
performance). Size of attendance center also showed no strong correlation to
performance (where the lowest and highest performing districts had slightly larger
attendance centers than districts performing in the middle range).
There are three major approaches that could be taken to identify districts that
have low performance: (1) an approach based on absolute levels of performance, in
which districts that are low performing do not meet a particular standard; (2) an
approach based on the change in performance over time, in which districts that are low
performing are those that do not improve their level of performance at a specified rate;
and (3) an approach that compares actual performance to expected performance, in
which low performing districts are those whose actual performance is lower than
expected performance. We used the third approach because a large proportion of the
variation in performance across school districts tends to be explained by the
demographic characteristics of pupils, which can be controlled by comparing actual to
predicted levels of performance.
In order to implement the third approach, we developed a prediction model for
performance (using the combined standard [“z”] scores for the three composite
indicators) based on a statistical technique, linear regression, that is designed to identify
those factors that predict performance and explain the variation in performance across
all districts.
The regression equation: (1) explained about 73 percent of the variation in
performance across all school districts; (2) suggested that the strongest predictor of
performance was the proportion of pupils from low-income families; (3) indicated that
density, tax effort, wealth and the proportion of pupils from low-income families were
negatively related to spending (that is, districts with higher density, higher tax effort,
higher wealth and higher proportions of pupils from low-income families had lower
performance); and (4) resulted in the following equation to predict performance:
combined standard
(“z”) performance on
reading, math, and
writing tests.
=
-9.122 - (12.895 X percentage of pupils
eligible for free/reduced lunch) - (.0289 X
density) - (42.113 X tax effort [mills])
- (.00000269 X assessed value per pupil)
+ (.985 X natural log of enrollment)
+ (.00204 X per pupil spending for
instruction).
III-3
When this equation is used to predict the actual pupil performance of districts,
there is a standard error across all districts of 1.367 per pupil. Because this error exists
(and differs for each district), we created a range of pupil performance for each district
within which we could be 90 percent confident that the predicted performance was
correct. We then compared each district’s actual performance to the low end of this
range and identified districts with actual performance below the low end as having
unusually low performance. We found 36 districts that had unusually low performance,
relative to what would have been expected, given their circumstances, in 1998-99.
Per Pupil Spending
We were able to obtain per pupil spending data for 1998-99 for all school districts
in Kansas, which was disaggregated for several functions. We chose to examine: (1)
instruction; (2) plant maintenance and operation (M&O); (3) administration (school and
district combined); and (4) transportation. We chose to exclude transportation in our
analysis since, in our view, spending for that purpose alone should not serve as the
primary basis of changing school district boundaries.
We found some variation across all school districts in their per pupil spending for
the three spending functions, as shown in Tables III-1 and III-2. Using pupil-weighted
data (Table III-2), in 1998-99 school districts in Kansas spent $3,162 per pupil, on
average, for instruction, with two-thirds of all pupils enrolled in districts that spent
between $2,713 and $3,611 for that purpose. On average, school districts spent $568
per pupil for administration and two-thirds of all pupils were enrolled in districts spending
between $343 and $793 for administration. Finally, districts spent $646 per pupil, on
average, for plant M&O — two thirds of all pupils attended schools in districts that spent
between $486 and $806 per pupil.
When the three functions are combined, districts spent an average of $4,376 per
pupil, although the range in spending was from $3,504 to $10,928. In order to identify
districts that spend at unusually high levels we had two choices: (1) we could simply
inspect per pupil spending and identify high spending as being above a specified
amount or (2) we could develop a predictive model designed to take into consideration
those factors, such as district enrollment, that might legitimately explain spending
differences. Since many studies of school district spending suggest that different
school districts spend at different levels because they face cost pressures beyond their
control, we used the second approach since it is designed to control for those factors.
The factors that might influence spending level decisions include such things as: (1)
district wealth as indicated by property value per pupil; (2) district tax effort; (3) district
enrollment level; (4) the proportion of pupils from low-income families; and (5) the
average size of each attendance center. The figures in Tables III-1 and III-2 indicate
the statewide average values for these factors as well as statistics about their
distribution across all districts. Looking at Table III-2, where figures are weighted for
III-4
pupil enrollment, the figures indicate that statewide average property value per pupil
was $41,988, although the range was from $612 per pupil to $537,214. Average tax
effort (imputed by dividing local revenue by property wealth) was 34.5 mills and twothirds of all pupils were enrolled in districts in which tax effort was between 28.1 and
40.9 mills. Average district enrollment was 1,477 pupils (although enrollments ranged
from 76 to 44,925 pupils) while the average size of attendance centers was 387 pupils
(although the range was from 38 to 816 pupils). The proportion of pupils from lowincome families (measured by the percentage of pupils eligible for free lunches) was
24.2 percent on average; two thirds of all pupils attended schools in districts with
between 9.1 and 39.3 percent of all pupils coming from low-income families.
In order to understand the relationships between spending, pupil performance,
and these factors, we organized districts into five groups, or quintiles, with different
levels of spending, as shown in Table III-5 (district weighted) and Table III-6 (pupil
weighted). Focusing on spending quintiles (and looking at quintiles with similar
numbers of pupils, as shown in Table III-6) there were nine districts, enrolling 91,399
pupils, in the lowest spending quintile (with those districts with spending below $3,757
per pupil) while there were 198 districts, enrolling 89,712 pupils, in the highest spending
quintile (with districts spending more than $4,931 per pupil). The average spending of
each quintile is shown in row (1), rising from $3,695 in the lowest spending quintile to
$5,572 in the highest spending quintile.
In general, higher total spending was associated with higher spending for the
three spending components (instruction, administration, and plant M&O) -- but that was
not always true. Despite an almost $300 per pupil difference in spending for instruction
between the second to lowest spending quintile and the middle spending quintile, there
was almost no difference in spending for administration between the two quintiles [see
row (3)] and spending for plant M&O was actually lower in the higher spending quintile
[see row (4)]. While higher spending districts tend to have higher test scores than lower
spending districts, the relationship is not strong because the highest test scores were in
the middle spending quintile. Higher spending districts also tend to have higher
property wealth [see row (12)]; but tax effort was similar across all spending groups
[except for the highest spending, wealthiest quintile — see row (13)]. Higher spending
districts tended to be smaller than lower spending districts [see row (14)] but the
average size of attendance centers was similar across all spending quintiles other than
the highest group, where they were smaller [see row (15)]. Finally, spending tended to
be higher in districts that had lower proportions of pupils from low-income families [see
row (16)].
In order to develop a prediction model for spending (the sum of instruction,
administration, and plant M&O), we used a statistical procedure, linear regression, to
determine the mathematical relationship between spending and wealth, effort,
enrollment level of districts and attendance centers, and proportion of pupils from lowincome families. Since some of the factors had a curvilinear (curved) relationship with
spending, rather than a linear (straight line) relationship, we used a logarithmic
transformation (natural log) for several factors (enrollment level, proportion of pupils
III-5
from low-income families, and average size of attendance centers). We also eliminated
the district [Fort Leavenworth (207)] with the lowest wealth ($612 per pupil) since it was
so different from all other districts.
The regression equation: (1) explained about 80 percent of the variation in
spending across the 303 school districts; (2) suggested that the strongest predictor of
spending was the average size of attendance centers; (3) indicated that enrollment
level, the proportion of pupils from low income families, and the average size of
attendance centers were negatively related to spending (that is, smaller school districts,
small attendance centers, and low proportions of pupils from low-income families
increased spending); and (4) resulted in the following equation to predict spending:
per pupil spending for
instruction, plant M&O,
and administration.
=
$10,079 - (969.02 X natural log of size
of attendance center) - (181.44 X natural
log of enrollment) - (216.44 X natural
log of proportion of pupils from low income
families) + (27,813.33 X tax effort [mills])
+ (.00404 X assessed value per pupil).
When this equation is used to predict the actual spending level of districts, there
is a standard error across all districts of $325 per pupil. Because this error exists (and
differs for each district), we created a range of spending for each district within which we
could be 95 percent confident that the predicted spending was correct. We then
compared each district’s actual spending to the high end of this range and identified
districts with actual spending in excess of the high end as having unusually high
spending. We found 41 districts that had unusually high spending, relative to the
spending level expected given their circumstances, in 1998-99.
Selecting “Target” Districts
We developed a variety of approaches for using the results of the regression
analyses of both pupil performance and per pupil spending to identify target school
districts that might be reorganized. First, we wanted to find districts that have low
performance relative to what might be expected and that spend at a high level
compared to what might be expected. As discussed above, 36 districts had lower than
expected pupil performance while 41 districts had higher than expected per pupil
spending. Of these 77 districts, 10 districts had both higher levels of spending and
lower levels of performance than would have been expected given their circumstances
(using the confidence intervals associated with the regressions). These ten districts,
which we refer to as Type “A” districts, are: Moscow Public Schools (209), West
Solomon Valley Schools (213), Elkhart (218), Washington Schools (222), Hanston
(228), Nes Tre La Go (301), Belle Plaine (357), Chase-Raymond (401), Hillcrest Rural
Schools (455), and Udall (463).
III-6
In addition, there are districts that have higher than expected levels of spending
and performance that has been lower than average for two years. These eight districts,
which we refer to as Type “B” districts, are: Fowler (225), Triplains (275), Elk Valley
(283), Cedar Vale (285), Herndon (317), Eastern Heights (324), Wathena (406), and
Chetopa (505).
Finally, there are districts that had lower than expected performance in 1998,
lower than average performance in 1997, and spending levels above the predicted level
excluding the use of the confidence interval. These 10 districts, which we refer to as
Type “C” districts, are: Turner-Kansas City (202), Bonner Springs (204), Mankato (278),
Pleasanton (344), Oxford (358), Caldwell (360), Marysville (364), Madison-Virgil (386),
Neodesha (461), and South Haven (509).
The data shown in Table III-7 compares the spending, pupil performance, and
other information that has been discussed in this section for the three groups of districts
separately, for the 276 districts not included in any of the three groups, and for all 304
districts.
Identifying Districts Based on Size of School
A second way to think about school districts that might benefit from
reorganization is based on schools being “too small” or “too large.” As has been
discussed in the literature review, education researchers and practitioners have studied
the optimum size of schools, the minimum size of schools, and the maximum size of
schools based on the ability of schools to offer what is believed to be an appropriate
curriculum, opportunities for extra-curricular activities, and a nurturing, safe environment
— all at reasonable cost. While the literature provides no universally accepted
guidance, it suggests that a high school should serve at least 100 pupils in order to
meet academic and social expectations. It also suggests that the maximum size of high
schools should be no greater than 900 pupils.1 While there are people who might
disagree with these figures, and there are plenty of examples of both successful high
schools with enrollments below 100 pupils or more than 900 pupils and of unsuccessful
high schools with enrollments between 100 and 900 pupils, many people find these
levels to be reasonable guidelines.
1
In 1997-98, there were 89,500 public schools in the United States, the average
enrollment of which was 525 pupils (the average size of elementary schools was 478
pupils while the average size of secondary schools was 699 pupils and the average size
of combined elementary- secondary schools was 374 pupils). Of those schools, about
8,800 had an enrollment of less than 100 pupils and 15,100 had an enrollment greater
than 800 pupils (with about 8,600 having more than 1,000 pupils) according to the
National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education.
III-7
Selecting “Target” Districts
What we wanted to do was to examine current enrollments in Kansas and, where
we saw schools that were either too small or too large based on the enrollment criteria,
to see whether it might be possible to reorganize districts so that schools would meet
the criteria. Since our focus is on school district organization, we decided to identify
districts that might be considered too small or too large. To do this, we assumed that,
for any district to support a high school of at least 100 pupils, it must have an enrollment
of at least 260 pupils per high school (so the enrollment of a district with two high
schools should be at least 520 pupils). We also assumed that, in order for a district not
to have a high school that exceeds 900 pupils, the district’s enrollment should be no
greater than 2,925 pupils per high school (so the enrollment of a district with two high
schools should not be greater than 5,850 pupils).
In looking at enrollment figures and numbers of high schools in Kansas, we found
50 districts with enrollments less than 260 pupils (45 of which have a single high school
and five of which have more than one high school). We also found 24 districts with
enrollments too large to support the number of high schools they have (18 of which
have one high school, two of which have two high schools, three of which have three
high schools, one of which has four high schools, one of which has five high schools,
and one of which has seven high schools). We also identified two districts where total
enrollment is simply so high that, regardless of numbers of high schools, they might be
viewed by some people as being too large to manage effectively. 2
Districts that are too small relative to the number of schools they operate: The
districts are listed below by category.
Too small with only one high school: Cheylin (103), White Rock (104), Moscow
Public Schools (20-9), Northern Valley (212), West Solomon Valley Schools
(213), Rolla (217), Ashland (220), North Central (221), Fowler (225), Hanston
(228), West Smith County (238), Weskan (242), Palco (269), Triplains (275),
Jewell (279), West Graham-Morland (280), Elk Valley (283), Cedar Vale (286),
Grinnell Public Schools (291), Wheatland (292), Prairie Heights (295), Sylvan
Grove (299), Nes Tre La Go (301), Smoky Hill (302), Bazine (304), Brewster
(314), Golden Plains (316), Herndon (317), Eastern Heights (324), Logan (326),
Burrton (369), Montezuma (371), Hamilton (390), Paradise (399), ChaseRaymond (401), Mullinville (424), Midway Schools (433), Hillcrest Public Schools
(455), Healy Public Schools (468), Dexter (471), Haviland (474), Copeland (476),
Pawnee Heights (496), Lewis (502), and Attica (511).
Too small with more than one high school: Barnes (223), Leroy-Gridley (245),
Southern Cloud (334), Rural Vista (481), and Axtell (488).
2
In 1997-98, there were 14,805 school districts in the United States, of which 230 districts
enrolled 25,000 or more pupils (those districts represented 1.6 percent of all districts and
they enrolled 31.5 percent of all pupils)
III-8
Districts that are too large:
Too large relative to the number of high schools: Turner-Kansas City (202), Blue
Valley (229), Olathe (233), Emporia (253), Derby (260), Haysville (261), Goddard
(265), Maize (266), Salina (305), Hutchinson (308), Seaman (345), Newton
(373), Manhattan (383), Great Bend (428), Auburn Washburn (437), Dodge City
(443), Leavenworth (453), Garden City (457), Geary County Schools (475),
Liberal (480), Hays (489), Lawrence (497), and Kansas City (500).
Too large: Wichita (259) and Shawnee Mission (512).
III-9
TABLE III-1
DISTRICT-WEIGHTED KANSAS STATEWIDE
STATISTICS FOR VARIABLES RELATED TO PER PUPIL
SPENDING AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE IN 1998-99
Statistics
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Coeff. of
Variation
(1) Total Spending (Instr.,
Admin., and Plant M&O)
$5,367
$3,504
$10,928
.214
(2) Instruction
$3,714
$2,503
$7,301
.191
(3) Administration
$860
$224
$2,529
.377
(4) Plant M&O
$793
$391
$2,184
.295
(5) Reading
65.2
52.5
76.3
.059
(6) Math
50.5
38.5
63.3
.095
(7) Writing
3.45
2.70
4.08
.063
(8) Total “z”
.398
- .759
6.670
1.098
(9) Reading “z”
.236
- 2.697
2.784
3.787
- .037
- 2.168
2.228
22.550
.200
- 3.697
3.495
5.660
Variable
Per Pupil Spending
Test Scores - Raw
Test Scores - Standard (“z”)
(10) Math “z”
(11) Writing “z”
TABLE III-1 (Continued)
Statistics
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Coeff. of
Variation
$48,284
$612
$537,214
1.179
(13) Imputed Local
Operating Tax Effort
31.4m
21.0m
55.2m
.214
(14) District Enrollment
1,477
76
44,925
2.536
(15) Attendance Center
Enrollment
230
38
816
.576
22.8%
1.0%
59.0%
.426
Variable
Other Variables
(12) 1998 Assessed Value
Per Pupil
(16) Percent of Pupils
Eligible for Free Lunch
TABLE III-2
PUPIL-WEIGHTED KANSAS STATEWIDE STATISTICS
FOR VARIABLES RELATED TO PER PUPIL SPENDING
AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE IN 1998-99
Statistics
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Coeff. of
Variation
(1) Total Spending (Instr.,
Admin., and Plant M&O)
$4,376
$3,504
$10,928
.168
(2) Instruction
$3,162
$2,503
$7,301
.142
(3) Administration
$568
$224
$2,529
.397
(4) Plant M&O
$646
$391
$2,184
.247
(5) Reading
64.2
52.5
76.3
.068
(6) Math
50.7
38.5
63.3
.111
(7) Writing
3.41
2.70
4.08
.056
(8) Total “z”
.000
.- 7.590
6.670
n/a
(9) Reading “z”
.000
- 2.697
2.784
n/a
(10) Math “z”
.000
- 2.168
2.228
n/a
(11) Writing “z”
.000
- 3.697
3.495
n/a
Variable
Per Pupil Spending
Test Scores - Raw
Test Scores - Standard (“z”)
TABLE III-2 (Continued)
Statistics
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Coeff. of
Variation
$41,988
$612
$537,214
.914
(13) Imputed Local
Operating Tax Effort
34.5m
21.0m
55.2m
.185
(14) District Enrollment
1,477
76
44,925
2.536
(15) Attendance Center
Enrollment
387
38
816
.366
24.2%
1.0%
59.0%
.626
Variable
Other Variables
(12) 1998 Assessed Value
Per Pupil
(16) Percent of Pupils
Eligible for Free Lunch
TABLE III-3
DISTRICT-WEIGHTED AVERAGES FOR VARIABLES RELATED
TO PER PUPIL SPENDING AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE IN
1998-99 BY QUINTILE OF PER PUPIL PERFORMANCE*
FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN KANSAS
Less
than
- 1.40
Number of Districts
Quintile of Performance
- 1.40
- .07
.99
to
to
to
- .08
.98
2.22
More
than
2.22
61
61
61
61
60
143,826
54,550
87,229
62,162
101,159
(1) Total Spending (Instr.,
Admin., and Plant M&O)
$5,342
$5,307
$5,265
$5,381
$5,542
(2) Instruction
$3,702
$3,652
$3,646
$3,717
$3,855
(3) Administration
$852
$855
$833
$863
$897
(4) Plant M&O
$788
$800
$785
$800
$791
(5) Reading
60.5
63.9
65.5
67.3
69.0
(6) Math
45.3
48.7
50.5
52.4
55.8
(7) Writing
3.25
3.35
3.45
3.52
3.68
Number of Pupils
Variable
Per Pupil Spending
Test Scores - Raw
TABLE III-3 (Continued)
Quintile of Performance
- 1.40
- .07
.99
to
to
to
- .08
.98
2.22
More
than
2.22
- 2.659
- .733
.445
1.561
3.425
- .848
- .064
.291
.701
1.113
(10) Math “z”
- .969
- .355
- .037
.289
.898
(11) Writing “z”
- .842
- .315
.190
.570
1.414
$55,187
$42,222
$42,351
$49,229
$52,501
(13) Imputed Local
Operating Tax Effort
31.5m
30.3m
30.9m
32.5m
31.6m
(14) District Enrollment
2,358
894
1,430
1,019
1,686
(15) Attendance Center
Enrollment
236
222
235
243
213
29.5%
23.2%
23.3%
19.9%
18.0%
Less
than
- 1.40
Variable
Test Scores - Standard (“z”)
(8) Total “z”
(9) Reading “z”
Other Variables
(12) 1998 Assessed Value
Per Pupil
(16) Percent of Pupils
Eligible for Free Lunch
* Per pupil performance is measured by the combined
z-scores for the three tests.
TABLE III-4
PUPIL-WEIGHTED AVERAGES FOR VARIABLES RELATED
TO PER PUPIL SPENDING AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE IN
1998-99 BY QUINTILE OF PER PUPIL PERFORMANCE*
FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN KANSAS
Less
than
- 2.50
Number of Districts
Quintile of Performance
- 2.50
- .42
.71
to
to
to
- .43
.70
2.58
More
than
2.58
27
78
64
92
43
87,113
91,947
88,133
92,528
89,133
(1) Total Spending (Instr.,
Admin., and Plant M&O)
$4,024
$4,355
$4,320
$4,640
$4,524
(2) Instruction
$2,935
$3,098
$3,113
$3,297
$3,359
(3) Administration
$475
$615
$566
$663
$515
(4) Plant M&O
$615
$643
$641
$679
$650
(5) Reading
58.1
62.0
65.1
66.9
68.7
(6) Math
43.7
47.6
51.0
52.9
58.3
(7) Writing
3.20
3.30
3.41
3.50
3.63
Number of Pupils
Variable
Per Pupil Spending
Test Scores - Raw
TABLE III-4 (Continued)
Less
than
- 2.50
Quintile of Performance
- 2.50
- .42
.71
to
to
to
- .43
.70
2.58
More
than
2.58
Variable
Test Scores - Standard (“z”)
(8) Total “z”
- 3.716
- 1.605
.228
1.472
3.531
(9) Reading “z”
- 1.398
- .508
.205
.618
1.045
(10) Math “z”
- 1.250
- .548
.045
.387
1.340
(11) Writing “z”
- 1.068
- .549
- .022
.467
1.146
$37,305
$38,239
$35,278
$42,495
$56,527
(13) Imputed Local
Operating Tax Effort
37.9m
32.3m
32.2m
33.0m
37.2m
(14) District Enrollment
3,226
1,179
1,377
1,006
2,073
(15) Attendance Center
Enrollment
416
340
357
357
469
43.5%
28.9%
24.4%
16.9%
8.0%
Other Variables
(12) 1998 Assessed Value
Per Pupil
(16) Percent of Pupils
Eligible for Free Lunch
* Per pupil performance is measured by the combined
z-scores for the three tests.
TABLE III-5
DISTRICT-WEIGHTED AVERAGES FOR VARIABLES RELATED
TO PER PUPIL SPENDING AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE IN
1998-99 BY QUINTILE OF PER PUPIL SPENDING FOR
INSTRUCTION, ADMINISTRATION, AND PLANT M&O
FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN KANSAS
Less
than
$4,390
Number of Districts
Quintile of Spending
$4,390
$5,059
$5,432
to
to
to
$5,058
$5,431
$5,979
More
than
$5,979
61
61
61
61
60
292,961
80,260
34,812
27,673
13,220
(1) Total Spending (Instr.,
Admin., and Plant M&O)
$4,024
$4,754
$5,242
$5,698
$7,147
(2) Instruction
$2,919
$3,364
$3,631
$3,881
$4,793
(3) Administration
$522
$689
$848
$932
$1,316
(4) Plant M&O
$584
$701
$762
$884
$1,037
(5) Reading
64.6
64.7
65.1
66.0
65.9
(6) Math
50.6
50.8
50.3
50.9
49.9
(7) Writing
3.42
3.43
3.46
3.45
3.48
Number of Pupils
Variable
Per Pupil Spending
Test Scores - Raw
TABLE III-5 (Continued)
Less
than
$4,390
Quintile of Spending
$4,390
$5,059
$5,432
to
to
to
$5,058
$5,431
$5,979
More
than
$5,979
Variable
Test Scores - Standard (“z”)
(8) Total “z”
.107
.236
.407
.655
.586
(9) Reading “z”
.079
.111
.203
.408
.380
- .018
.016
- .071
.039
- .156
.046
.109
.276
.208
.362
$30,367
$42,096
$34,266
$64,013
$71,053
(13) Imputed Local
Operating Tax Effort
32.3m
30.8m
28.7m
30.6m
34.5m
(14) District Enrollment
4,803
1,316
571
454
220
(15) Attendance Center
Enrollment
409
277
206
164
92
22.2%
19.5%
22.7%
22.0%
27.6%
(10) Math “z”
(11) Writing “z”
Other Variables
(12) 1998 Assessed Value
Per Pupil
(16) Percent of Pupils
Eligible for Free Lunch
TABLE III-6
PUPIL-WEIGHTED AVERAGES FOR VARIABLES RELATED
TO PER PUPIL SPENDING AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE IN
1998-99 BY QUINTILE OF PER PUPIL SPENDING FOR
INSTRUCTION, ADMINISTRATION, AND PLANT M&O
FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN KANSAS
Less
than
$3,757
Number of Districts
Quintile of Spending
$3,758
$4,034
$4,264
to
to
to
$4,033
$4,263
$4,931
More
than
$4,931
9
22
19
56
198
91,399
89,804
91,490
86,712
89,712
(1) Total Spending (Instr.,
Admin., and Plant M&O)
$3,695
$3,897
$4,177
$4,565
$5,572
(2) Instruction
$2,776
$2,817
$3,120
$3,291
$3,822
(3) Administration
$407
$456
$459
$608
$918
(4) Plant M&O
$512
$625
$598
$666
$833
(5) Reading
61.4
62.2
66.4
65.6
65.5
(6) Math
48.0
47.7
54.5
52.7
50.7
(7) Writing
3.29
3.34
3.49
3.46
3.48
Number of Pupils
Variable
Per Pupil Spending
Test Scores - Raw
TABLE III-6 (Continued)
Less
than
$4,390
Quintile of Spending
$4,390
$5,059
$5,432
to
to
to
$5,058
$5,431
$5,979
- 1.787
- 1.362
1.604
.938
.642
- .659
- .453
.508
.322
.295
(10) Math “z”
- .488
- .528
.668
.356
.001
(11) Writing “z”
- .641
- .381
.428
.260
.346
$34,669
$30,370
$45,883
$45,270
$53,954
35.0m
35.3m
35.7m
34.8m
31.5m
(14) District Enrollment
10,155
4,082
4,815
1,548
453
(15) Attendance Center
Enrollment
449
425
473
390
197
37.5%
29.6%
16.2%
15.4%
22.0%
More
than
$5,979
Variable
Test Scores - Normed (“z”)
(8) Total “z”
(9) Reading “z”
Other Variables
(12) 1998 Assessed Value
Per Pupil
(13) Imputed Local
Operating Tax Effort
(16) Percent of Pupils
Eligible for Free Lunch
TABLE III-7
PUPIL-WEIGHTED AVERAGES FOR VARIABLES RELATED TO
PER PUPIL SPENDING AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE IN 1998-99
FOR THREE GROUPS OF KANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICTS
IDENTIFIED AS LOW PERFORMING AND HIGH SPENDING
Group of School Districts
All
Kansas
Districts
Number of Districts
Type
A*
Type
B**
Type
C***
All
Other
Districts
304
10
8
10
276
448,926
2,919
1,654
9,545
434,808
(1) Total Spending (Instr.,
Admin., and Plant M&O)
$4,376
$6,508
$6,723
$4,941
$4,340
(2) Instruction
$3,162
$4,513
$4,518
$3,429
$3,142
(3) Administration
$568
$1,090
$1,294
$760
$558
(4) Plant M&O
$646
$905
$910
$752
$641
(5) Reading
64.2
61.8
64.5
58.6
64.4
(6) Math
50.7
46.7
45.4
45.3
50.9
(7) Writing
3.41
3.18
3.34
3.17
3.42
Number of Pupils
Variable
Per Pupil Spending
Test Scores - Raw
TABLE III-7 (Continued)
Group of School Districts
All
Kansas
Districts
Type
A*
Type
B**
Type
C***
All
Other
Districts
Variable
Test Scores - Standard (“z”)
(8) Total “z”
.000
- 2.426
- 1.237
- 3.510
.098
(9) Reading “z”
.000
- .545
.061
- 1.297
.032
(10) Math “z”
.000
- .709
- .937
- .957
.029
(11) Writing “z”
.000
- 1.173
- .361
- 1.255
.037
$41,988
$75,280
$37,946
$27,983
$42,087
(13) Imputed Local
Operating Tax Effort
34.5m
31.5m
31.0m
39.0m
34.4m
(14) District Enrollment
1,477
292
207
955
1,575
(15) Attendance Center
Enrollment
387
176
124
348
391
24.2%
24.3%
40.3%
24.9%
24.1%
Other Variables
(12) 1998 Assessed Value
Per Pupil
(16) Percent of Pupils
Eligible for Free Lunch
*
Type “A” districts had both higher levels of spending and lower levels of performance than would have
been expected given their circumstances.
**
Type “B” districts had higher than expected levels of spending and performance that has been lower
than average for two years.
***
Type “C” districts had lower than expected performance in 1998 and lower than average performance
in 1997 and have spending levels above the predicted level excluding the use of the confidence
interval.
Chapter IV
INTERVIEW PROCEDURES
The State of Kansas requested that we conduct interviews and collect
information from at least sixty (60) school districts, thereby gathering information from a
broad cross-section of the state concerning reorganization and efficiency. We received
survey information from 90 districts. Using a variety of procedures (including review of
the survey information), we identified sixty-four (64) districts and conducted meetings,
interviews, observations and analysis with these districts.
The On-Site Visit and Interview Process
Selecting Districts for Analysis
Our review of the literature prompted us to identify districts that had low levels of
student performance and high levels of per pupil spending, districts that could most
benefit from reorganization and efficiency. Specifically, we selected districts that had a
lower pupil performance and higher per pupil spending than would have been expected,
given the district’s characteristics. The previous chapter provided detail for the selection
of the “target” districts in Map 1. In sum, 28 districts had lower performance and higher
levels of spending than we expected. These districts became our primary focus for the
interview planning, inquiry and collecting data.
In addition to the twenty-eight “target” districts, we identified 44 other districts that
had one or more of the following characteristics: (1) below average performance in 1997
and 1998 and higher than average spending; (2) convoluted or odd boundaries; (3)
dramatic enrollment changes (a decline of 20% in 5 or 10 years); (4) all buildings 50
years old, and (5) fewer than 150 pupils in the entire district and declining enrollment.
Of these 72 districts (28+44), we isolated 15 districts that would most benefit
from an on-site visit, in which interviews and observations would be made to
supplement and explain the district’s unique circumstances, conditions and problems.
Of these 15 districts, ten (10) were type “A” districts that had lower performance and
higher spending than expected; four (4) were considered type “B” and “C” districts (of
the 18 districts); and one (1) district that met at least five other criteria.
In addition, we sent surveys to 90 districts to supplement the information on
enrollment, conditions of school facilities, course offerings, distance learning, and
sharing with other districts. These 90 districts include the 72 that met the criteria
described above, plus 18 neighboring districts.
IV-1
KASB School Board Meetings
We met with 43 districts in conjunction with the Kansas Association of School
Boards (KASB) meetings:
•
14 of the Type “B” or “C” districts that did not have site visits.
•
11 districts that met multiple criteria.
•
17 “good neighbor” districts (i.e., a neighboring district of one of the 15
being visited, with relatively high performance and low spending).
•
One neighbor district of a district with a convoluted boundary.
The Research Teams
Three experienced teams of two researchers met with schools at the KASB
school board meetings and at district sites. The meetings took place April 2- May 11,
2000.
Team One included John Myers, partner of Augenblick & Myers (A&M), and Dr.
Michael G. Lacy, A&M associate and professor at Regis University. Team Two
included: Dr. John Augenblick, and Justin Silverstein, partner and associate of A&M,
respectively. And Team Three included: Dr. Chris Pipho, former of Senior Fellow at the
Education Commission of the States (ECS) and Terry Whitney, former senior policy
specialist for National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).
While at the meeting, a brief presentation was made describing the procedures,
scope and timetable of the study. Questions were solicited at each school board
meeting. Before and after the meetings, we met with superintendents, school board
members, and community members. We asked the district officials a variety of
questions pertaining to (a) per pupil performance and spending, (b) the role the school
plays in the community, (c) the future of the district, and (d) views about developing
relationships with neighboring districts.
On-Site Visits
The site visits we conducted gave district administrators, teachers, school board
and community members a chance to (1) affirm or explain their (low) performance and
(high) spending levels; (2) reaffirm their building capacity needs; (3) forecast future
enrollments, and (4) discuss obstacles for student learning in their district.
We met with the district officials for approximately two hours. The interviews
were designed to provide 30 minutes with the superintendent; 20 minutes with a
IV-2
teacher; 40 minutes with a school board member and a leader or member of the
community; and then, 30 minutes with a principal or superintendent again. Some
school districts requested changed schedules, added interviews, or changed the
interview formats.
School Districts Selected
Western Kansas
The primary focus of Team One was western Kansas. They met the district
superintendents, and school board members at the school board meeting in Weskan,
Cimarron, and Stafford. Specifically, Team One met with Atwood (318), Chase (401),
Hanston (228), Hill City (281), Hoxie (412), Hugoton (210), Jetmore (227), Oakley (274),
Prairie Heights (295), and Rolla (217) all of which were “good neighbors” of districts
that had lower than predicted pupil performance and higher spending. Team One
conducted two site interviews with superintendents, school board members, community
members, and teachers in Moscow (209) and Elkhart (218).
Central Kansas
Team Two focused on central Kansas. They attended two school board
meetings in Cuba, Wellington and Goessel. After the meetings, the research team met
with Burrton (369), Conway Springs (356), Lyons (405), Oxford (358), South Haven
(509), Winfield (465), Wellington (353), Mankato (278), Phillipsburg (325), Clifton-Clyde
(224), Pike Valley (426), Republic County (427), Southern Cloud (334), Washington
(222). Team Two had site meetings at Belle Plaine (357), Caldwell (360), Eastern
Heights (324), Hillcrest (455), Lenora (213), Morland (280), and Udall (463).
Eastern Kansas
Team Three went to the school board meetings in Fort Scott, Blue Rapids,
Tecumseh, and Lansing. They met with Barnes (223), Bonner Springs (204), Cedar
Vale (285), Lyons (406), Madison-Virgil (386), Marysville (364), Neodesha (461), North
Central (221), and Pleasanton (344), and Turner-Kansas City (202).
Phone Interviews
Some school districts did not meet with us at the school board meeting, primarily
because they were undergoing changes, such as a new superintendent, administrators,
or others. For these districts, we conducted five telephone interviews with the
superintendents. These interviews lasted about 90 minutes. The five districts were
Argonia (359), Chetopa (505), Elk Valley (283), Fowler (225), and Sterling (376).
IV-3
Large School Districts
In addition to per pupil performance and spending, we met with six (6) districts
because of their “large” pupil population size (based on average high school
enrollments above 900 pupils), to see if they could benefit from reorganization, and to
hear their concerns. They were: Auburn Washburn (437), Kansas City (500), Olathe
(233), Shawnee Mission (512), Topeka (501), and Wichita (259).
Conclusion
In sum, we interviewed 64 school districts, received survey information from 90
school districts in Kansas, and received school building capacity information from all
school districts. This work provided the evidentiary material for descriptions,
explanations and attitudes towards reorganization and consolidation, of substantial
resistance and a call for state help found in the next section.
What We Heard
A Summary Of The Interviews
The interviews with administrators, school board members, community leaders,
and teachers suggest that (a) they have substantial resistance to the idea of
reorganizing or consolidating school districts; (b) they support state involvement to
reorganize districts in extreme cases (where there are declining enrollments and high
spending); (c) they justified or defended low student performance and high
expenditures; and (d) they viewed the use of technology for student learning and
building projects as a way of surviving consolidation; and (e) they were ambivalent
about mandates by the state.
Resistance to Consolidation
Many older and established community leaders and school board members
resisted the idea of reorganizing school districts, primarily because they viewed
consolidation as a threat to their community. They commonly cited the statewide
consolidation in the 1960s, which created unified K-12 districts and reduced the total
number of school districts in Kansas. The consolidation resulted in feelings of
resentment, loss of autonomy and control, as well as disenfranchisement from the rank
and file, they argued. Notably, these accounts did not reference the changing structural
conditions in Kansas (e.g., economy, declining populations, desire for efficiency).
Instead, the consolidation was blamed for the destruction of communities and difficult
economic conditions. The school closures have had long-term effects they argued,
because it is virtually impossible to attract new businesses and industries to
communities that do not have a school. In some counties, the school district is the
IV-4
major employer. In addition, community leaders and school board members consider
the (high) school to be the hub of community and extracurricular activities (especially
sports), thereby reinforcing a sense of community.
The resistance to consolidation also stems from longstanding and intense
feelings toward neighboring districts, counties, and townships. The source of these
rivalries is historic, said one superintendent, based on competition over being awarded
the county seat over 100 years ago. Some argued that the differences were cultural
and socioeconomic, reflecting how each of the communities developed its business
activities and interests (e.g., farming, mining, oil and gas producing, and bedroom
communities). These interests affected the expectations for student learning and
advancement for higher degrees, explained one superintendent. Those communities
that were near colleges had higher expectations for student learning. Differences were
also expressed in terms of ethnic and regional differences, dramatized with lurid stories
of crime and drugs in neighboring towns and cities.
Some district administrators resisted reorganization on financial grounds. They
complained that combining school districts would result in less revenue and per pupil
spending locally, and more money being sent to Topeka. This was a recurrent concern
expressed by oil and gas-rich districts in southwestern Kansas, wanting the authority to
act independently.
A Call for State Help
Some districts distinguished by low and declining enrollments (some fewer than
50 students) thought that they could benefit from state reorganization and support.
Many of these districts had large geographic areas. For the most part, these school
administrators were concerned about economic efficiency and lowering cost, however
they resisted the idea that their declining enrollments affected the quality of education,
curricula and student learning. However, one story told by a superintendent unearthed
a serious problem. The superintendent reported that one of their most experienced and
popular high school math teachers, who taught four grade levels, moved away. Her
replacement was not a good teacher. The district enticed the established teacher to
return (because of her status in the community). However, during her absence, the
students suffered. This stark and succinct example shows that in small districts, one
good or bad teacher can affect many students, over many grade levels for one or many
years.
Rather than closing or consolidating schools, struggling districts proposed that
they become “special needs” or “education centers” (e.g., teaching special education,
bilingual education, adult education). School board members and community leaders
said that they would consider consolidation if the state would “bring neighboring districts
here.” In other words, the compromises and sacrifices should be made elsewhere.
IV-5
Explanations for Low Student Performance
As suggested earlier, one of the criteria that we used to select the schools for the
interviews was student performance. The district officials attempted to justify their low
performance scores or to defend them by using other criteria.
Justifications for Low Performance
Some school district administrators justified their lower than predicted
performance by complaining about the tests:
•
The scope of the tests and indexes were unrepresentative (“scores
in the past would have been much higher”).
•
The tests were unreliable and unrepresentative (particularly the
writing tests).
•
The scores were attributed to a statistical aberration, caused by
one or two students.
•
Each class is different and the test did not include the “good”
classes.
School administrators accounted for their low student performance by blaming certain
groups:
•
A bad cohort of students who score poorly on the tests.
•
The changing ethnic and socioeconomic demographics (the school
serves a high number of ESL students, Hispanics, and “outsiders”).
Neighboring superintendents and school board members argued that low performing
schools were a product of:
•
Poor leadership by superintendents and administrators.
•
Inexperienced teachers (particularly in remote and rural areas of
the state).
•
Low expectations for student performance, and too much emphasis
on extracurricular activities.
Defending Low Student Performance
Although most did not provide hard evidence, school administrators argued that
the state assessments were not valid or credible because one student could easily bring
IV-6
down the score and status of the entire school. They argued for national comparative
standards and new criteria (rather than state assessment), defending their student
performance because their scores on national test scores (e.g., the Compre-hensive
Test of Basic Skills or CTBS, or the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, or ITBS) were above the
national average. In addition, they argued that scholastic achievement should be
measured by graduation rates, which would be better and more reliable measures of
success.
In addition, many school officials defended their performance scores by using
anecdotal evidence, of three or four exemplars in the community that earned higher
degrees from Ivy League Universities, who actively contribute to the community and,
have talented children. Without hesitation, administrators could recite the names of
students in their districts who received national merit awards or scholarships to major
universities.
In addition, some school board members highlighted the benefits of small
schools and small school districts, such as: (a) smaller class sizes; (b) higher
participation in extracurricular activities; (c) lower dropout rates; (d) less problems; and
(e) the production of more productive citizens – particularly when compared to
neighboring districts known for crime, drug problems and low scholastic achievement.
(“Parents would not send their children there!”)
Explanations for High Spending
Some districts accepted the fact that they were spending too much, but justified it
because of professional development, training and retention. In spite of the fact that the
state is making it easier to cross district lines, transportation costs were still cited as the
largest expenditure, particularly in large geographic areas with declining enrollments.
Thus, because of teacher retention issues (in a climate of teacher shortages) and
transportation issues, school administrators argued that the state would not be saving
much by consolidating these districts. In addition, high spending was a result of special
needs programs, such as ESL, adult education courses, and salaries for bilingual
teachers.
In any event, some superintendents and school board members argued that the
high level of spending was “not out of line” because the state allows that level of
spending in their authorized budget and “local option budget” (LOB), which provided for
additional expenditures. After all, they argued, the LOB was supported by the local
school board elected by the community. Therefore, they argue that district spending
levels are not necessarily a state issue. Moreover, the state financing formula was not
adequate to meet the needs of special groups of students.
Responses to Consolidation
There was a broad range of responses to reorganizing school districts in Kansas,
including denial, capital improvements, innovations, and acceptance.
IV-7
Consolidation Concerns
Many school district officials and school board members were opposed to
consolidation and reorganization (“Nothing will be done anyway!”), had explanations for
why districts were low performing and high spending, and expected declining enrollment
problems to be resolved. Some school board members said that they would not even
discuss possible plans for sharing with neighboring districts because those
“discussions” would eventually lead to consolidation.
Even given the intensity of the rivalries, school board members acknowledged
that sharing and cooperation with neighboring districts was occurring in the area of
sports and extracurricular activities, but not in the academic arena.
The Construction of Facilities
Perhaps the most striking response to the possibility of reorganization was the
construction of new facilities, particularly gymnasiums. Some districts were constructing
new buildings to increase the probability that a school would survive district
consolidation. The belief was that by building new, large and modern structures, these
districts were less likely candidates for school closures and consolidation.
Technology
In response to limited curricula, superintendents promised that technology (TwoWay Interactive Television Networks, or ITV courses) was presently addressing their
students’ needs. ITV and distance learning courses offered college-bound students the
curricula and course offerings that were not available in the traditional school setting.
Through ITV courses, high school students could receive college credit before attending
college. However, very few student performance measures on distance learning were
presented; instead, school officials lauded ITV. In addition, there has been an effort to
build a technology backbone throughout the state, using the community colleges and
universities. While most rural areas considered other technological approaches a
panacea, a few urban school districts felt burdened by the costs of those approaches.
Convoluted Boundaries
At the onset of this study, the state expressed interest in changing or
straightening convoluted district boundaries. District boundaries were set in the 1960s
and the rationale for maintaining them is perhaps no longer useful. Still, nearly all of the
interviewees said that changing the boundaries is “more trouble than it’s worth,”
primarily because of the present open enrollment policies which permit students to
enroll in districts other than those where they reside. In addition, the 1992 changes in
the School Finance Act decreased the influence of local property value on school
funding. Moreover, technology has created “virtual school districts,” one superintendent
argued, alleviating the need for district boundaries.
IV-8
Superintendents as Managers
In spite of the prevalence of Special Education Cooperatives, Service Centers,
Interlocals and Networks, most administrators do not routinely work with neighboring
districts. Some superintendents promote the sharing of technology, nurses, teachers,
and other resources. Most sharing occurred because of prior relationships among
superintendents. One superintendent argued that if reorganization were left up to the
superintendents, organizational problems might be resolved because superintendents
are willing to work together. These superintendents viewed the lack of clear
administrative roles and responsibilities as a major hindrance to taking action. Some
suggested that sharing teachers, might cause scheduling and governance problems (for
example, how would teachers be paid and by which district?). Some districts were
sharing senior administrators although net savings were small because the
superintendents in small districts had other roles and responsibilities, including principal
and transportation director.
Some administrators of large school districts have resisted sharing with smaller
districts, particularly in rural areas, because of budgetary, logistical and scheduling
demands. Resulting high transportation costs reduce cost savings, they argued.
Superintendents of larger districts expressed concern that the smaller districts viewed
them as monoliths.
The Reorganization Process
The more established superintendents suggested that the state should mandate
change, while providing timetables and incentives, and not require that districts hold
down spending and raise taxes until they no longer can afford it (“bleeding the district”).
Mandating change would minimize the period of resentment, they argued, while taking
the pressure off local school boards and administrators to make difficult financial
decisions.
Some administrators wanted the state to provide incentives for reorganization
efforts. Funding for such programs should be provided and could be reevaluated
periodically (every two or three years). Moreover, funding should be given for programs
that encourage community dialogue, such as “pen pal programs.”
Conclusion
Although there is substantial resistance to reorganizing school districts in
Kansas, some district officials acknowledge that something needs to be done. They
suggest that a more comprehensive approach for organizing school districts will
enhance efficiency and student performance.
IV-9
Chapter V
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO REORGANIZING
SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN KANSAS
Introduction
In Section III, we described two ways to identify districts that might need to be
reorganized. First, we focused on school districts where pupil performance was low and
where per pupil spending was high. Second, we focused on school districts where
schools, or the district itself, may be too small or too large to provide a broad array of
services effectively. Having identified “target” districts, we then examined the
characteristics of all districts that are neighbors of those target districts to determine if
reorganization with one or more of them might address the conditions in each target
district. In the case of those districts selected on the basis of relatively low pupil
performance and relatively high per pupil spending, we identified suitable neighbors as
ones with relatively high performance and relatively low per pupil spending. In the case
of those districts selected on the basis of size, we identified suitable neighbors based on
proximity, size, and the availability of space to serve pupils. In pursuing these
approaches, we discovered several situations in which we were either unable to find a
suitable neighboring district for a target district, or the suitable neighbor we found
differed depending on which approach (size or performance) was used to identify the
neighbor. Therefore, we developed a third approach, which focused on the same target
districts we identified using the first and second approaches, but selected neighboring
districts using some criteria associated with the first two approaches, as well as
information gleaned from the interviews we conducted with school districts, making the
outcome both rational and reasonable.
The result of pursuing these three approaches was the development of three
maps that display the districts we believe should be reorganized. There are several
important things to take into consideration in reviewing the maps. First, we have
attempted to use data to drive the process. That is, we established criteria to guide our
work and then collected and evaluated relevant information to determine whether any
district met the criteria and whether other districts should be involved in reorganization.
We strongly believe that this approach is the only legitimate way to do this kind of work
and that other approaches would not withstand scrutiny by those who are affected by
policy decisions. Second, we used data in making our decisions that some might
complain were never intended to be used for that purpose. In our view, the state has
gone to the trouble of developing pupil performance data using statewide tests as well
as school district spending data using statewide accounting procedures, and such
information is the best and only basis for making the kinds of decisions we needed to
make in doing this work. Third, we took our work to completion; that is, we used the
data and information we had to recommend that specific districts be reorganized. We
did this primarily to illustrate that it is possible to reach such conclusions. However, as
V-1
is discussed in Section VI, we believe that the actual reorganization of school districts
should follow a process that places the burden on the state to identify districts targeted
for reorganization. This should be based on appropriate criteria and data, which might
be similar to those we used, then gives target districts some time to overcome the
problems that brought them to the state’s attention, and then creates a process for
identifying which districts would be reorganized if the target district were unable to
rectify the situation by itself. Finally, a number of the issues we encountered in doing
this work are intra-school or intra-district issues that focus on whether schools should be
reorganized or closed. The discussion below is focused exclusively on school districts
and assumes that the state has no authority to make school closure decisions or
decisions of a similar nature even when they might be what is required to address an
issue that brought a school district to our attention.
The First Approach to School District Reorganization (Map 1)
The purpose of Map 1 is to show how school districts in Kansas might look if
districts with lower than expected pupil performance and higher than expected per pupil
spending were required to merge with other districts in response to those conditions.
As has been discussed in the literature review, the rationale for making changes in
school district organization has focused on three broad areas of interest: (1) spending
levels; (2) programmatic elements; and (3) levels of pupil performance. Map 1 is
designed to reflect the results of statistical analysis of pupil performance data and per
pupil spending data, which was used to identify target districts as well as to select
neighboring districts that might make the best candidates for merger with target districts.
The Target Districts
As discussed in Section III, we identified 28 districts that have a combination of
relatively low pupil performance and relatively high per pupil spending. Those 28
districts are as follows:
Type “A” (much lower than expected pupil performance and much higher than
expected per pupil spending): Moscow Public Schools (209), West Solomon
Valley Schools (213), Elkhart (218), Washington Schools (222), Hanston (228),
Nes Tre La Go (301), Belle Plaine (357), Chase-Raymond (401), Hillcrest Rural
Schools (455), and Udall (463).
Type “B” (much higher than expected levels of spending and performance that
has been lower than average for two years): Fowler (225), Triplains (275), Elk
Valley (283), Cedar Vale (285), Herndon (317), Eastern Heights (324), Wathena
(406), and Chetopa (505).
Type “C” (somewhat lower than expected performance in 1998, lower than
average performance in 1997, and spending levels somewhat above the
V-2
predicted level): Turner-Kansas City (202), Bonner Springs (204), Mankato (278),
Pleasanton (344), Oxford (358), Caldwell (360), Marysville (364), Madison-Virgil
(386), Neodesha (461), and South Haven (509).
Identifying Appropriate Neighboring Districts
Having identified 28 target districts, we examined all their neighboring districts to
find appropriate candidates for merger based on four factors: (1) pupil performance; (2)
per pupil spending; (3) distance between schools; and (4) being in the same county.
Our assumption is that the best candidates for merger are those districts with relatively
high levels of pupil performance and relatively low levels of per pupil spending that are
reasonably close to target districts (that is, having schools within a distance of 20 miles
of each other) and within the same county (representing a similar community of
interest). The figures in Table V-1 indicate those characteristics of neighbor districts for
each of the 28 target districts.
Table V-2 indicates the recommended mergers of districts, which result in: (1) the
creation of 20 merged districts, combining 20 target districts with 22 neighbor districts;
(2) of the 20 new districts, all reflect merging a target district with one other district; (3)
no mergers between target districts; and (4) eight target districts that cannot be
reorganized.
The Second Approach to School District Reorganization (Map 2)
As discussed in Section III, we also identified school districts that might benefit
from reorganization on the basis of school size. In looking at enrollment figures and
numbers of high schools in Kansas, we found 50 districts with enrollments less than 260
pupils. We also found 24 districts with enrollments that are too large in relationship to
the number of high schools they have. We also identified two districts where total
enrollment is simply so high that, regardless of numbers of high schools, they might be
viewed by some people as being too large to manage effectively.
The Target Districts
Districts that are too small relative to the number of schools they operate.
Too small with only one high school: Cheylin (103), White Rock (104), Moscow
Public Schools (20-9), Northern Valley (212), West Solomon Valley Schools
(213), Rolla (217), Ashland (220), North Central (221), Fowler (225), Hanston
(228), West Smith County (238), Weskan (242), Palco (269), Triplains (275),
Jewell (279), West Graham-Morland (280), Elk Valley (283), Cedar Vale (286),
Grinnell Public Schools (291), Wheatland (292), Prairie Heights (295), Sylvan
Grove (299), Nes Tre La Go (301), Smoky Hill (302), Bazine (304), Brewster
V-3
(314), Golden Plains (316), Herndon (317), Eastern Heights (324), Logan (326),
Burrton (369), Montezuma (371), Hamilton (390), Paradise (399), ChaseRaymond (401), Mullinville (424), Midway Schools (433), Hillcrest (455), Healy
(468), Dexter (471), Haviland (474), Copeland (476), Pawnee Heights (496),
Lewis (502), and Attica (511).
Too small with more than one high school: Barnes (223), Leroy-Gridley (245),
Southern Cloud (334), Rural Vista (481), and Axtell (488).
Districts that are too large.
Too large relative to the number of high schools: Turner-Kansas City (202), Blue
Valley (229), Olathe (233), Emporia (253), Derby (260), Haysville (261), Goddard
(265), Maize (266), Salina (305), Hutchinson (308), Seaman (345), Newton
(373), Manhattan (383), Great Bend (428), Auburn Washburn (437), Dodge City
(443), Leavenworth (453), Garden City (457), Geary County Schools (475),
Liberal (480), Hays (489), Lawrence (497), and Kansas City (500).
Too large: Wichita (259) and Shawnee Mission (512).
Identifying Appropriate Neighboring Districts
Once the target districts using this approach were identified, we examined
neighboring districts to determine whether consolidation could address the issue that
brought the district under scrutiny. In order for a merger to be feasible, we decided that
existing high schools in two districts should be no more than 20 miles apart and that
there would need to be sufficient capacity in one or more schools to serve all of the
pupils in the newly formed district. The figures in Table V-3 indicate the characteristics
of neighboring districts for all 76 target districts.
We found that 45 of the 50 districts considered to be too small could be merged
with one or more neighboring districts and would meet all criteria. For five districts,
consolidation with a neighboring district would not solve the problem. Twenty-nine
neighboring districts were merged with these 45, resulting in 34 new districts. This
meant that where there had originally been 74 districts there were now 34 (of those 34
new districts, 29 are the result of the merger of two districts, four are the result of the
merger of three districts, and one is the result of the merger of four districts).
We also found that district reorganization would only address the needs of six
districts that are too large relative to the number of high schools they operate. These
six districts could be merged with seven neighboring districts to create five new districts
(of these five districts, two are the result of merging two districts and three are the result
of merging three districts). In 18 districts, some other approach, such as creating
“schools within schools,” would need to be used to address the issue of large high
schools. That approach plus others, such as dividing a district into several districts,
V-4
would need to be used to address the issues associated with the two districts that are
very large.
Mergers that we consider to be appropriate are shown in Table V-4(A) and Table
V-4(B). Map 2 indicates a variety of approaches that might be used to address optimum
size issues. The map shows a total of 39 new districts created by merging 51 target
districts (ones considered to be too small or too large given the number of high schools
they operate) with 36 neighboring districts that, together, are close enough and have
sufficient capacity to address the concern in a reasonable way. The map shows that
the 39 new districts are the result of 31 mergers of two districts, seven mergers of three
districts, and one merger of four districts. In the end, the state would have 256 school
districts rather than the 304 districts that exist currently. The map also shows: (1) the
five districts that have enrollments that are too low to support a high school of 100
pupils for which we could not find a suitable neighbor for merger; (2) the 18 districts that
have high schools considered to be too large but for which we could not find a suitable
neighbor for merger (and within which some other approach would need to be taken to
address the problem); and (3) the two districts that are very large.
The Third Approach to School District Reorganization (Map 3)
The purpose of Map 3 is to combine the information shown in Map 1 and Map 2
with other information we obtained, including that gained during the interviews with
school district personnel, to create a set of districts that should be, and could be,
reorganized. Map 3 reflects the research on school and school district size, the actual
performance and spending levels of districts, and the practical matters that ought to be
taken into consideration before making recommendations about changing school district
boundaries.
In order to create Map 3, we developed nine rationales (A-I) for selecting target
districts and neighbor districts. The rationales are shown below.
Rationale “A”
Select any reorganized sets of districts that are the same on both Map 1 and
Map 2. In this case, any target district would be selected on the basis of the
criteria used in both Map 1 and Map 2 and any districts selected for merger with
a target district would meet the criteria used in both Map 1 and Map 2. We
identify five target districts and five merger districts using this rational.
Rationale “B”
Select any target district that meets the criteria for identifying target districts on
both Map 1 and Map 2 but that is reorganized differently in Map 1 than it is in
Map 2; resolve the differences in Map 3. In some cases, this means that we
selected a merger district for a target district for which no merger district is
V-5
selected in Map 1. In other cases, we selected a merger district from among
alternative districts that we identify in Map 1 or Map 2. Using this rationale, we
identify seven target districts and nine merger districts, four of which are targets
in Map 2, using this rationale.
Rational “C”
Select sets of districts in which one district is a target district in Map 1 and
merger districts are target districts in Map 2. Using this rationale, we identify six
sets of merger districts.
Rationale “D”
Select all districts using Map 1 criteria that have not been selected already and
reconfigure them using merger districts from Map 1 or Map 2 if they are
reasonable based on distance and information obtained in interviews. We
identify nine target districts and nine merger districts using this rationale.
Rationale “E”
Select all districts that have schools considered to be too small using Map 2
criteria that have only one high school, which have not been selected already,
and reconfigure them only if they meet the following additional criteria:
(A)
(B)
If they have between 150 and 260 pupils, they must also meet two out of
the following three criteria:
(1)
Have little or no projected enrollment growth;
(2)
Have actual per pupil spending that is more than 30 percent above
predicted spending per pupil;
(3)
Have actual average pupil performance below predicted pupil
performance.
If they have less than 150 pupils, they must meet one of the following
criteria:
(1)
Have little or no projected enrollment growth;
(2)
Have actual per pupil spending that is more than 20 percent above
predicted spending per pupil.
Using this rationale, we identify nine target districts and nine merger districts, one
of which meets Map 2 selection criteria.
V-6
Rationale “F”
Select all districts that have schools considered to be too small using Map 2
criteria that have more than one high school, which have not been selected
already, and reconfigure them only if they meet two out of three of the following
additional criteria:
(1)
Have little or no projected enrollment growth;
(2)
Have actual per pupil spending that is more than 30 percent above
predicted spending per pupil;
(3)
Have actual average pupil performance below predicted pupil
performance.
We identify four target districts and four merger districts using this rationale.
Rationale “G”
Select all districts that have schools that are too large using Map 2 criteria where
merger with other districts can alleviate the concern and merger is possible due
to available capacity in existing facilities. Using this rationale, we identify three
target districts and four merger districts.
Rationale “H”
Select all districts that have schools that are too large using Map 2 criteria where
merger with other districts does not appear capable of resolving the concern and
where intra-district or intra-school action needs to be taken. We identify 19
districts using this rationale.
Rationale “I”
Select districts considered to be too large using Map 2 criteria. These districts
may need to be disaggregated into smaller districts. We identify two districts
using these criteria.
V-7
TABLE V-1
DATA RELATED TO THE SELECTION OF NEIGHBORING DISTRICTS TO
MERGE WITH THE TARGET DISTRICTS ASSOCIATED WITH MAP 1
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
Pupil
Performance
z-score
Pred.
Actual
Per Pupil
Spending
Pred.
Actual
Distance
(Miles)
In Target
District
County?
Type “A”
209
213
218
Moscow
210
214
480
483
507
Hugoton Public Schools
Ulysses
Liberal
Kismet-Plains
Satanta
No
No
No
No
No
1.09
-0.50
-0.46
-2.16
-0.35
-1.68
-1.46
-1.22
-1.61
-1.52
-0.77
-3.97
$7,564
$5,695
$4,851
$3,707
$4,785
$5,886
$8,647
$4,866
$4,659
$3,569
$5,256
$5,861
13
23
26
35
15
Yes
No
No
No
No
211
280
281
295
326
Norton Community Schools
West Graham-Morland
Hill City
Prairie Heights
Logan
No
No
No
No
No
1.23
1.25
2.78
0.72
0.95
0.32
-3.18
-0.77
1.43
-0.38
-1.07
0.77
$7,055
$4,865
$7,640
$5,596
$6,835
$6,033
$8,714
$5,002
$10,928
$5,717
$7,307
$6,932
17
19
19
16
23
Yes
No
No
No
No
217
452
Rolla
Stanton County
No
No
1.22
-0.19
-0.54
-3.33
1.55
-0.78
$5,610
$7,402
$6,153
$6,534
$8,434
$5,825
17
44
Yes
No
West Solomon Valley P.S.
Elkhart
TABLE V-1 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
Pupil
Performance
z-score
Pred.
Actual
Per Pupil
Spending
Pred.
Actual
Distance
(Miles)
In Target
District
County?
Type “A”
222
Washington Schools
221
223
228
No
No
1.66
-0.97
0.72
-0.69
-1.18
-1.86
$5,364
$6,430
$6,258
$6,053
$6,921
$5,823
14
11
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
3.05
1.59
1.00
0.09
1.33
2.75
-0.08
0.76
0.76
-1.35
-2.62
2.30
$6,705
$5,326
$6,725
$6,292
$5,252
$6,328
$7,693
$5,588
$7,604
$6,242
$5,165
$7,655
12
27
19
17
11
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2.84
1.25
2.22
1.91
1.04
0.46
-3.91
3.33
5.53
0.05
0.68
1.98
$7,797
$4,891
$5,660
$6,385
$5,878
$6,024
$10,441
$5,458
$6,235
$7,521
$5,900
$5,943
31
29
13
20
20
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Hanston
227
304
347
381
496
301
North Central
Barnes
Jetmore
Bazine
Kinsley-Offerle
Spearville
Pawnee Heights
Nes Tre La Go
208
293
302
303
482
Wakeeney
Quinter Public Schools
Smoky Hill
Ness City
Dighton
TABLE V-1 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
Pupil
Performance
z-score
Pred.
Actual
Per Pupil
Spending
Pred.
Actual
Distance
(Miles)
In Target
District
County?
Type “A”
357
Belle Plaine
263
264
353
358
463
401
455
Mulvane
Clearwater
Wellington
Oxford
Udall
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
1.53
0.95
2.06
-0.79
1.77
0.88
-2.51
-0.95
2.65
-2.35
-2.81
-1.54
$4,604
$4,251
$4,848
$4,535
$4,989
$5,175
$5,337
$3,760
$4,411
$3,813
$5,622
$5,857
7
14
11
11
10
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
-4.50
-0.83
4.16
-0.50
0.85
1.25
2.57
$6,636
$5,906
$5,744
$5,765
$5,146
$5,371
$5,312
$7,393
$5,684
$5,457
$6,125
$5,189
$5,717
$4,865
34
37
31
12
13
13
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
-4.51
-1.18
2,68
2.09
$1.49
$6,126
$6,430
$5,951
$4,505
$5,337
$7,157
$6,921
$5,920
$4,511
$5,615
15
18
19
10
No
No
No
Yes
Chase-Raymond
310
328
349
355
376
405
Fairfield
Lorraine
Stafford
Ellinwood public Schools
Sterling
Lyons
No
No
No
No
No
No
-1.22
-1.01
0.23
-1.86
0.45
0.07
-0.43
221
224
333
427
North Central
Clifton-Clyde
Concordia
Republic County
No
No
No
No
-0.05
-0.97
0.61
-0.23
0.61
Hillcrest Rural Schools
TABLE V-1 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
Pupil
Performance
z-score
Pred.
Actual
Per Pupil
Spending
Pred.
Actual
Distance
(Miles)
In Target
District
County?
Type “A”
463
Udall
263
357
358
396
462
465
Mulvane
Belle Plaine
Oxford
Douglass Public Schools
Central
Winfield
102
219
220
226
371
Cimarron-Ensign
Minneola
Ashland
Meade
Montezuma
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
0.88
0.95
1.53
1.77
1.96
0.52
0.49
-1.54
-0.95
-2.51
-2.81
0.75
-0.65
-0.31
$5,175
$4,251
$4,604
$4,989
$4,638
$5,577
$4,828
$5,857
$3,760
$5,337
$5,622
$4,930
$5,846
$4,162
11
10
9
11
21
14
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
0.39
0.56
-0.03
0.23
0.87
-0.73
-0.51
-1.39
-1.99
2.15
1.30
-2,48
$6,656
$4,623
$5,683
$6,327
$5,494
$6,390
$8,027
$4,541
$5,687
$6,338
$5,505
$6,637
30
10
27
11
20
No
No
No
Yes
No
Type “B”
225
Fowler
TABLE V-1 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
Pupil
Performance
z-score
Pred.
Actual
Per Pupil
Spending
Pred.
Actual
Distance
(Miles)
In Target
District
County?
Type “B”
275
283
285
Triplains
241
274
314
315
466
467
Wallace County Schools
Oakley
Brewster
Colby Public Schools
Scott County
Leoti
No
No
No
No
No
No
1.60
-0.65
-0.74
1.37
0.72
0.82
-0.14
-0.05
3.20
0.42
2.96
0.45
2.48
2.11
$7,221
$5,330
$5,652
$6,410
$4,361
$4,753
$5,386
$8,485
$5,545
$5,979
$6,988
$4,302
$4,736
$5,524
30
22
22
25
45
40
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
282
286
446
461
484
West Elk
No
Chauatauqua County Community No
Independence
No
Neodesha
Yes
Fredonia
No
-3.17
-0.84
-0.24
-0.65
-0.16
-0.86
-1.56
1.32
-0.01
-1.57
-4.01
-1.78
$5,359
$5,046
$4,658
$3,969
$4,633
$4,667
$6,631
$5,643
$5,249
$4,060
$5,220
$5,066
19
18
23
22
18
Yes
No
No
No
No
282
286
462
471
West Elk
Chauatauqua County Community
Central
Dexter
-2.11
-0.84
-0.24
0.52
0.47
-0.65
1.32
-0.01
-0.65
3.17
$5,890
$5,046
$4,658
$5,577
$5,775
$6,930
$5,643
$5,249
$5,846
$6,481
38
18
20
13
No
Yes
No
No
Elk Valley
Cedar Vale
No
No
No
No
TABLE V-1 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
Pupil
Performance
z-score
Pred.
Actual
Per Pupil
Spending
Pred.
Actual
Distance
(Miles)
In Target
District
County?
Type “B”
317
324
406
Herndon
294
316
318
Oberlin
Golden Plains
Atwood
No
No
No
0.25
0.85
-0.41
0.16
-0.25
4.40
3.95
4.51
$6,572
$4,918
$6,460
$4,934
$7,765
$5,256
$6,764
$5,325
15
30
15
No
No
Yes
238
271
325
392
West Smith County
Stockton
Phillipsburg
Osborne County
No
No
No
No
-1.22
3.08
0.98
1.43
-0.07
-0.32
1.47
2.28
2.38
1.00
$5,642
$5,847
$4,880
$5,008
$5,161
$6,583
$6,935
$5,292
$5,305
$5,385
9
30
13
38
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
0.59
1.06
-1.44
-1.40
1.19
-4.48
$5,080
$5,440
$5,159
$5,835
$5,875
$5,146
7
4
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
-4.00
-1.37
-1.03
0.74
-3.05
0.61
3.31
0.80
$5,537
$4,747
$5,520
$4,598
$6,253
$4,447
$5,095
$4,018
26
10
22
No
No
Yes
Eastern Heights
Wathena
429
486
505
Troy Public Schools
Elwood
Chetopa
493
504
506
Columbus
Oswego
Labette County
TABLE V-1 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
Pupil
Performance
z-score
Pred.
Actual
Per Pupil
Spending
Pred.
Actual
Distance
(Miles)
In Target
District
County?
Type “C”
202
204
278
344
Turner-Kansas City
Yes
No
No
No
-2.22
-0.04
1.98
-5.41
2.60
-4.85
-2.89
3.46
-6.63
3.09
$4,506
$4,363
$4,816
$3,798
$4,036
$4,634
$4,665
$4,959
$3,825
$4,262
12
18
8
12
Yes
No
Yes
No
Piper-Kansas City
De Soto
Basehor-Linwood
Kansas City
No
No
No
No
-0.04
1.51
1.98
1.21
-5.41
-2.89
1.35
3.46
1.39
-6.63
$4,363
$5,079
$4,816
$4,497
$3,798
$4,665
$4,504
$4,959
$4,137
$3,825
8
8
9
16
Yes
No
No
Yes
104
279
426
White Rock
Jewell
Pike Valley
No
No
No
-0.11
-0.45
0.97
0.65
-2.36
-1.49
-1.22
-1.98
$6,029
$6,610
$6,592
$5,720
$6,072
$6,864
$7,171
$5,662
14
9
23
Yes
Yes
No
346
362
Jayhawk
Prairie View
No
No
-0.11
-0.31
1.03
-3.03
-0.28
2.79
$4,885
$5,163
$5,620
$5,418
$5,209
$6,010
20
18
Yes
Yes
204
232
500
512
Bonner Springs
De Soto
Kansas City
Shawnee Mission P.S.
203
232
458
500
Bonner Springs
Mankato
Pleasanton
TABLE V-1 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
Pupil
Performance
z-score
Pred.
Actual
Per Pupil
Spending
Pred.
Actual
Distance
(Miles)
In Target
District
County?
Type “C”
358
360
364
Oxford
353
357
463
465
470
509
Wellington
Belle Plaine
Udall
Winfield
Arkansas City
South Haven
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
1.77
-0.79
1.53
0.88
0.49
-1.95
0.07
-2.81
-2.35
-2.51
-1.54
-0.31
-2.11
-3.66
$4,989
$4,535
$4,604
$5,175
$4,828
$4,333
$5,412
$5,622
$3,813
$5,337
$5,857
$4,162
$3,922
$5,485
14
10
9
13
16
20
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
353
359
361
509
Wellington
Argonia Public Schools
Anthony-Harper
South Haven
No
No
No
Yes
0.42
-0.79
-0.45
-0.10
0.07
-2.51
-2.35
-0.75
-1.86
-3.66
$5,401
$4,535
$5,447
$4,247
$5,412
$5,765
$3,813
$5,629
$4,594
$5,485
21
19
29
11
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
2.27
0.72
0.53
2.41
-0.49
-0.86
-1.86
2.56
0.39
3.91
$4,595
$6,258
$5,200
$6,264
$5,350
$5,023
$5,823
$5,239
$5,617
$5,376
37
15
37
22
No
No
Yes
Yes
Caldwell
Marysville
223
380
488
498
Barnes
Vermillion
Axtell
Valley Heights
TABLE V-1 (Continued)
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
245
252
390
Leroy-Gridley
Southern Lyon County
Hamilton
No
No
No
-0.43
0.04
0.72
-0.26
-2.70
-0.85
-1.07
2.47
$5,483
$5,806
$5,195
$6,270
$5,525
$5,067
$4,981
$7,397
28
18
11
No
No
Yes
101
283
387
446
447
484
Erie-St. Paul
Elk Valley
Altoona-Midway
Independence
Cherryvale
Fredonia
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
-0.16
0.11
-3.17
-0.06
-0.65
-1.63
-0.86
-4.01
1.66
-1.56
0.15
-1.57
-3.40
-1.78
$4,633
$5,353
$5,359
$5,831
$3,969
$4,438
$4,667
$5,220
$4,849
$6,631
$5,368
$4,060
$4,944
$5,066
29
22
20
14
14
11
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
0.07
-0.79
1.77
0.42
-1.95
-3.66
-2.35
-2.81
-2.51
-2.11
$5,412
$4,535
$4,989
$5,401
$4,333
$5,485
$3,813
$5,622
$5,765
$3,922
16
20
12
21
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Target District
Pupil
Performance
z-score
Pred.
Actual
Per Pupil
Spending
Pred.
Actual
Distance
(Miles)
In Target
District
County?
Type “C”
386
461
509
Madison-Virgil
Neodesha
South Haven
353
358
360
470
Wellington
Oxford
Caldwell
Arkansas City
TABLE V-2
DISTRICTS INVOLVED IN RECONFIGURATION WHERE
TARGET DISTRICTS ARE THOSE WITH RELATIVELY LOW
PERFORMANCE AND RELATIVELY HIGH SPENDING (MAP 1)
List of 28 Map 1
Target Districts by Type
Districts Involved in Reconfiguration
Other Districts
Other Districts
that are
that are not
Map 1 Targets
Map 1 Targets
Type “A”
209
Moscow Public Schools
210
213
West Solomon Valley P.S.
218
Elkhart
222
Washington Schools
228
Hanston
227
Jetmore
301
Nes Tre La Go
482
Dighton
357
Belle Plaine
264
Clearwater
401
Chase-Raymond
405
Lyons
455
Hillcrest Rural Schools
427
Republic County
463
Udall
--
Hugoton P.S.
--
217
--
Rolla
--
--
--
Type “B”
225
Fowler
226
Meade
275
Triplains
274
Oakley
283
Elk Valley
282
West Elk
285
Cedar Vale
471
Dexter
TABLE V-2 (Continued)
List of 28 Map 1
Target Districts by Type
Districts Involved in Reconfiguration
Other Districts
Other Districts
that are
that are not
Map 1 Targets
Map 1 Targets
Type “B” (Continued)
317
Herndon
318
Atwood
324
Eastern Heights
325
Phillipsburg
406
Wathena
505
Chetopa
--
-504
Oswego
Type “C”
202
Turner-Kansas City
512
Shawnee Mission
204
Bonner Springs
203
Piper-Kansas City
278
Mankato
344
Pleasanton
358
Oxford
--
--
360
Caldwell
--
--
364
Marysville
498
Valley Heights
386
Madison-Virgil
390
Hamilton
461
Neodesha
387
Altoona-Midway
509
South Haven
--
-346
--
Jayhawk
--
TABLE V-2 (Continued)
Summary of Reconfiguration
1.
There are 28 target districts based on relatively low performance and relatively high spending.
2.
We looked at all neighbor districts of those 28 target districts and were able to reconfigure 20 of
them taking into consideration performance levels, spending levels, and distance from a target
district.
3.
It takes 20 unduplicated reconfigurations to address the needs of the remaining 20 districts.
4.
Of these reconfigurations, all 20 involve two-district mergers.
Note: Type “A” districts are those that had both pupil performance levels lower than expected in 1998 (using a 90%
confidence interval) and per pupil spending higher than expected in 1998 (using a 95% confidence interval) on
the basis of statewide analysis of district characteristics that predict pupil performance and per pupil spending.
Type “B” districts are those in which pupil performance was lower than the statewide average in both 1998 and
1997 while per pupil spending was higher than expected (using a 95% confidence interval on the basis of
statewide analysis of district characteristics that predict per pupil spending).
Type “C” districts are those that had lower than expected performance in 1998 on the basis of statewide analysis of
district characteristics that predict pupil performance, lower than statewide average pupil performance in 1997, and
per pupil spending somewhat above the level expected (without using a confidence interval) on the basis of
statewide analysis of district characteristics that predict per pupil spending.
TABLE V-3
DATA RELATED TO THE SELECTION OF NEIGHBORING DISTRICTS TO
MERGE WITH THE TARGET DISTRICTS ASSOCIATED WITH MAP 2
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (One High School)
103
104
209
Cheylin
297
314
318
352
St. Francis Com. School
Brewster
Atwood
Goodland
No
Yes
No
Yes
192
441
161
435
1,156
237
272
278
279
427
Smith Center
Waconda
Mankato
Jewell
Republic County
No
No
No
Yes
No
200
585
279
275
186
606
210
214
480
483
507
Hugoton Public Schools
Ulysses
Liberal
Kismet-Plains
Satanta
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
192
957
1,770
4,050
693
438
White Rock
Moscow Pub. Schools
277
241
142
106
14
28
27
30
23
40
14
21
44
14
23
26
35
14
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
139
21
23
20
Too Small (One High School)
212
213
217
Northern Valley
211
325
326
Norton Community Schools
Phillipsburg
Logan
No
No
Yes
198
746
697
208
211
280
281
295
326
Norton Community Schools
West Graham-Morland
Hill City
Prairie Heights
Logan
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
95
746
91
426
92
208
286
284
244
132
17
19
19
16
23
210
218
452
Hugoton Public Schools
Elkhart
Stanton County
No
No
No
206
957
551
540
142
218
16
17
34
West Solomon Valley S.
Rolla
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (One High School)
220
221
225
Ashland
219
225
226
300
459
Minneola
Fowler
Meade
Comanche County
Bucklin
No
Yes
No
No
No
247
278
170
441
359
354
222
223
224
455
Washington Schools
Barnes
Clifton-Clyde
Hillcrest Rural Schools
No
Yes
No
Yes
161
375
197
389
154
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
170
634
278
247
441
215
North Central
Fowler
102
219
220
226
371
Cimarron-Ensign
Minneola
Ashland
Meade
Montezuma
22
27
28
26
26
120
125
170
33
14
23
22
16
30
10
27
11
20
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (One High School)
228
238
242
Hanston
227
304
347
381
496
Jetmore
Bazine
Kinsley-Offerle
Spearville
Pawnee Heights
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
139
332
112
356
362
159
237
324
392
Smith Center
Eastern Heights
Osborne County
No
Yes
No
196
585
195
496
200
241
Greeley County Schools
Wallace County Schools
No
No
125
320
306
West Smith County
Weskan
251
504
330
104
215
65
75
12
27
19
17
11
14
9
29
29
12
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (One High School)
269
275
Palco
208
270
271
280
281
388
399
489
Wakeeney
Plainville
Stockton
West Graham-Morland
Hill City
Ellis
Paradise
Hays
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
179
572
453
440
91
426
368
154
3,423
241
274
314
315
466
467
Wallace County Schools
Oakley
Brewster
Colby Public Schools
Scott County
Leoti
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
93
306
510
161
1,122
1,121
478
Triplains
329
244
29
17
21
28
17
30
32
41
30
22
22
25
45
40
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (One High School)
279
Jewell
104
272
273
278
333
426
280
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
91
572
95
426
390
447
No
No
No
No
No
219
524
509
2,221
758
882
West Graham-Morland
208
213
281
293
412
283
White Rock
Waconda
Beloit
Mankato
Concordia
Pike Valley
186
200
279
807
275
1,308
300
Wakeeney
West Solomon Valley Schools
Hill City
Quinter Public Schools
Hoxie Community Schools
Elk Valley
282
286
446
461
484
West Elk
Chautauqua County Comm.
Independence
Neodesha
Fredonia
152
104
238
244
253
371
664
187
21
29
14
9
28
22
25
19
12
21
19
19
18
23
22
18
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (One High School)
285
Cedar Vale
282
286
462
471
291
292
West Elk
Chauatuqua County Comm.
Central
Dexter
No
No
No
Yes
206
524
509
405
201
Grinnell Public Schools
274
292
316
412
Oakley
Wheatland
Golden Plains
Hoxie Community Schools
No
Yes
Yes
No
160
510
184
176
447
291
293
412
468
Grinnell Public Schools
Quinter Public Schools
Hoxie Community Schools
Healy Public Schools
Yes
No
No
Yes
184
160
390
447
104
Wheatland
664
69
38
18
20
13
182
191
19
18
43
33
220
181
18
13
21
36
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (One High School)
295
Prairie Heights
211
213
294
412
299
301
Norton Community Schools
West Solomon Valley Schools
Oberlin
Hoxie Community Schools
No
Yes
No
No
92
746
95
558
447
No
No
No
No
No
No
205
279
807
412
754
279
583
No
No
Yes
No
No
76
572
390
161
289
345
Sylvan Grove
272
273
298
327
328
407
Waconda
Beloit
Lincoln
Ellsworth
Lorraine
Russell County
208
293
302
303
482
Wakeeney
Quinter Public Schools
Smoky Hill
Ness City
Dighton
Nes Tre La Go
238
202
326
239
281
355
23
16
16
23
35
35
13
25
35
26
31
29
13
20
20
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (One High School)
302
304
314
Smoky Hill
208
301
303
304
388
395
Wakeeney
Nes Tre La Go
Ness City
Bazine
Ellis
Lacrosse
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
161
572
76
289
112
368
357
228
302
303
395
496
Hanston
Smoky Hill
Ness City
Lacrosse
Pawnee Heights
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
112
139
161
289
257
159
103
275
315
318
352
Cheylin
Triplains
Colby Public Schools
Atwood
Goodland
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
161
192
93
1,122
435
1,156
Bazine
Brewster
64
281
128
239
281
441
811
27
13
12
19
28
35
27
19
11
22
22
28
22
18
35
18
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
249
32
43
27
27
30
18
Too Small (One High School)
316
317
324
Golden Plains
274
291
294
315
317
412
Oakley
Grinnell Public Schools
Oberlin
Colby Public Schools
Herndon
Hoxie Community Schools
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
176
510
160
558
1,122
100
447
294
316
318
Oberlin
Golden Plains
Atwood
No
Yes
No
100
558
176
435
Yes
No
No
No
195
196
440
697
496
Herndon
Eastern Heights
238
271
325
392
West Smith County
Stockton
Phillipsburg
Osborne County
202
315
191
199
14
30
15
9
31
13
38
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
208
746
198
95
440
426
697
No
No
No
No
246
1,123
2,212
452
751
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
215
634
170
441
122
294
693
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (One High School)
326
369
371
Logan
211
212
213
271
281
325
Norton Community Schools
Northern Valley
West Solomon Valley Sch.
Stockton
Hill City
Phillipsburg
312
313
423
440
Haven Public Schools
Buhler
Moundridge
Halstead
102
225
226
476
477
483
Cimarron-Ensign
Fowler
Meade
Copeland
Ingalls
Kismet-Plains
Burrton
Montezuma
283
21
19
23
22
25
15
263
125
258
23
15
15
12
202
170
178
16
20
26
11
26
42
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (One High School)
390
Hamilton
284
386
389
492
399
401
Chase County
Madison-Virgil
Eureka
Flinthills
No
No
No
No
122
493
282
796
339
Paradise
270
271
392
407
432
489
Plainville
Stockton
Osborne County
Russell County
Victoria
Hays
No
No
No
No
No
No
154
453
440
496
583
302
3,423
310
328
349
355
376
405
Fairfield
Lorraine
Stafford
Ellinwood Public Schools
Sterling
Lyons
No
No
No
No
No
No
182
448
279
338
601
532
934
Chase-Raymond
330
122
329
107
180
403
28
10
12
26
15
22
24
28
24
29
34
37
31
12
13
13
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
No
No
No
No
109
359
356
294
354
238
64
26
24
10
9
No
No
No
No
No
232
806
1,096
279
399
725
364
285
156
56
633
15
17
11
12
13
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
154
161
375
197
389
1,308
606
189
15
21
32
18
19
10
Too Small (One High School)
424
Mullinville
300
347
422
459
433
Midway Schools
377
415
425
429
430
455
Comanche County
Kinsley-Offerle
Greensburg
Bucklin
Atchison County Comm. Schools
Hiawatha
Highland
Troy Public Schools
South Brown County
Hillcrest Rural Schools
221
222
223
224
333
427
North Central
Washington Schools
Barnes
Clifton-Clyde
Concordia
Republic County
511
242
144
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
355
40
36
36
21
9
127
346
955
917
13
10
16
19
Too Small (One High School)
468
471
474
Healy Public Schools
274
292
293
466
482
Oaley
Wheatland
Quinter Public Schools
Scott County
Dighton
No
Yes
No
No
No
104
510
184
390
1,121
345
285
462
465
470
Cedar Vale
Central
Winfield
Arkansas City
Yes
No
No
No
201
206
405
2,642
2,858
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
179
759
359
295
294
346
191
Dexter
Haviland
254
300
351
422
438
502
Barber County North
Comanche County
Macksville
Greensburg
Skyline Schools
Lewis
206
37
30
30
8
22
27
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (One High School)
476
Copeland
371
374
457
477
483
496
502
Montezuma
Sublette
Garden City
Ingalls
Kismet-Plains
Yes
No
No
No
No
122
215
494
7,100
294
693
Pawnee Heights
228
304
347
395
403
495
Hanston
Bazine
Kinsley-Offerle
Lacrosse
Otis-Bison
Ft. Larned
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
159
139
112
356
357
336
1,073
347
351
422
424
474
495
Kinsley-Offerle
Macksville
Greensburg
Mullinville
Haviland
Ft. Larned
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
191
356
295
294
109
179
1,073
Lewis
29
123
11
12
36
30
34
126
11
22
21
27
35
30
504
292
16
16
23
26
26
27
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
428
20
28
30
13
Too Small (One High School)
511
Attica
254
255
332
361
Barber County North
South Barber
Cunningham
Anthony-Harper
221
222
224
364
379
384
498
North Central
Washington Schools
Clifton-Clyde
Marysville
Clay Center
Blue Valley (Riley Co.)
Valley Heights
No
No
No
No
163
759
325
334
1,079
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
197
161
375
389
971
795
303
514
Too Small (More than
One High School)
223
Barnes
120
23
11
35
37
55
37
25
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
Burlington
Southern Lyon County
Iola
Garnett
Woodson
Madison-Virgil
Hamilton
Crest
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
183
918
659
1,673
1,122
620
282
122
311
No
No
No
No
No
137
389
687
807
1,308
795
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Small (More than
One High School)
245
Leroy-Gridley
244
252
257
365
366
386
390
479
334
Southern Cloud
224
239
273
333
379
Clifton-Clyde
North Ottawa County
Beloit
Concordia
Clay Center
186
228
276
11
31
34
45
17
27
31
40
33
21
36
18
45
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
221
21
40
32
33
34
15
95
36
30
13
295
588
7,827
8,930
13
18
8
12
Too Small (More than
One High School)
481
Rural Vista
397
410
417
473
475
487
488
Centre
Durham-Hillsborough-Lehigh
Morris County
Chapman
Geary County Schools
Herington
No
No
No
No
No
No
226
307
736
1,036
1,227
6,077
571
No
No
No
187
971
315
270
Axtell
364
380
451
Marysville
Vermillion
B&B
Too Large
202
Turner-Kansas City
204
232
500
512
Bonner Springs
De Soto
Kansas City
Shawnee Mission
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
3,641
2,130
2,515
4,969
6,059
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Large
229
230
233
416
512
233
Spring Hill
Olathe
Louisburg
Shawnee Mission P.S.
8,930
16
16
22
19
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
6,209
5,140
1,354
2,384
2,515
6,059
4,163
289
265
588
8,930
16
13
18
15
17
No
No
No
4,570
716
329
493
134
471
332
18
17
20
Olathe
229
230
231
232
512
253
No
Yes
No
Yes
5,140
1,354
6,209
1,303
6,059
Blue Valley (Johnson Co.)
Blue Valley
Spring Hill
Gardner-Edgerton-Antioch
De Soto
Shawnee Mission P.S.
Emporia
251
252
284
North Lyon County
Southern Lyon County
Chase County
289
11,817
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
10,352
442
462
170
18
10
11
9
442
177
995
1,696
21
15
11
11
10
10,352
763
1,115
1,696
256
17
7
10
15
17
Too Large
260
Derby
259
261
263
394
261
Haysville
265
Goddard
266
Wichita
Haysville
Mulvane
Rose hill Public Schools
6,673
6,418
4,198
1,938
1,755
Yes
Yes
No
No
(Not evaluated due to large alternative school)
259
261
264
266
267
Wichita
Haysville
Clearwater
Maize
Renwick
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
259
262
265
267
440
Wichita
Valley Center P.S.
Goddard
Renwick
Halstead
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Maize
3,260
6,418
4,198
1,145
4,895
904
4,895
6,418
2,303
3,260
904
751
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
21
200
16
21
16
17
17
Too Large
305
Salina
240
306
307
393
308
345
Twin Valley
Southeast of Salina
Ell-Salina
Solomon
No
No
No
No
3,629
314
679
460
427
Hutchinson P.S.
309
312
313
Nickerson
Haven Public Schools
Buhler
No
No
No
4,892
1,358
1,123
2,212
337
340
343
372
437
450
501
Royal Valley
Jefferson West
Perry Public Schools
Silver Lake
Auburn Washburn
Shawnee Heights
Topeka
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
3,180
854
944
1,045
695
4,957
1,692
4,493
Seaman
156
123
595
N/A
185
1,056
341
3,725
11
22
11
18
16
21
13
19
16
12
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
957
183
259
137
256
359
21
16
16
15
11
15
9
Too Large
373
Newton
206
262
398
411
439
440
460
383
Remington-Whitewater
Valley Center P.S.
Peabody-Burns
Goessel
Sedgwick Public Schools
Halstead
Hesston
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
3,465
549
2,303
467
316
463
751
841
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
5,819
1,412
775
558
625
1,036
6,077
Manhattan
320
323
329
378
417
475
Wamego
Rock Creek
Mill Creek Valley
Riley County
Morris County
Geary County Schools
188
140
363
17
18
33
16
40
21
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Large
428
Great Bend
350
351
354
355
403
431
495
437
St. John-Hudson
Macksville
Claflin
`
Ellinwood Public Schools
Otis-Bison
Hoisington
Ft. Larned
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
444
295
325
601
336
744
1,073
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
4,957
534
636
695
1,318
1,692
365
4,493
Auburn Washburn
321
330
372
434
450
454
501
Kaw Valley
Wabaunsee East
Silver Lake
Santa Fe Trail
Shawnee Heights
Burlingame Public Schools
Topeka Public Schools
175
99
146
185
341
3,725
26
31
19
13
21
11
23
32
23
14
22
16
21
15
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Large
443
Dodge City
102
219
227
381
459
453
457
Cimarron-Ensign
Minneola
Jetmore
Spearville
Bucklin
No
No
No
No
No
4,917
634
278
332
362
354
Leavenworth
207
449
469
Ft. Leavenworth
Easton
Lansing
No
No
No
4,041
-704
1,913
102
216
363
374
466
476
477
482
507
Cimarron-Ensign
Deerfield
Holcomb
Sublette
Scott County
Copeland
Ingalls
Dighton
Satanta
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
7,100
634
375
870
494
1,121
122
294
345
438
Garden City
338
-0
16
285
680
24
24
25
18
26
5
12
6
32
19
14
38
46
36
23
51
42
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Large
475
480
489
378
379
383
417
473
481
Riley County
Clay Center
Manhattan
Morris County
Chapman
Rural Vista
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
6,077
625
795
5,819
1,036
1,227
226
209
210
483
Moscow Public Schools
Hugoton Public Schools
Kismet-Plains
Yes
No
No
4,050
192
956
693
26
26
24
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
3,423
179
453
368
357
154
336
302
40
28
17
26
29
28
11
Geary County Schools
Liberal
Hays
269
270
388
395
399
403
432
Palco
Plainville
Ellis
Lacrosse
Paradise
Otis-Bison
Victoria
363
182
463
20
37
21
42
27
35
TABLE V-3 (Continued)
Target District
Neighbor Districts
Is the
N’ghbor a
Target
District?
District
Enroll.
per
High
School
Excess
Capacity of
Close High
Schools
Distance
(Miles)
Too Large
497
500
501
Lawrence
342
343
348
434
450
464
491
McLouth
Perry Public Schools
Baldwin City
Santa Fe Trail
Shawnee Heights
Tonganoxie
Eudora
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
5,008
577
1,045
1,241
1,318
1,692
1,467
1,100
202
203
204
Turner-Kansas City
Piper-Kansas City
Bonner Springs
Yes
No
Yes
345
372
437
450
Seaman
Silver Lake
Auburn Washburn
Shawnee Heights
Yes
No
Yes
No
Kansas City
Topeka P.S.
33
170
21
14
17
33
23
19
12
4,969
3,641
1,282
2,130
259
643
295
8
15
16
4,493
3,180
695
4,957
1,692
2,040
185
1,056
341
12
13
15
10
235
229
TABLE V-4(A)
DISTRICTS INVOLVED IN RECONFIGURATION WHERE
TARGET DISTRICTS ARE THOSE WITH SCHOOLS
CONSIDERED TO BE TOO SMALL BASED ON
ENROLLMENT RELATIVE TO NUMBER OF
HIGH SCHOOLS (MAP 2)
Other Districts Involved in Reconfiguration
Other Districts
Other Districts
that are
that are not
Map 2 Targets
Map 2 Targets
List of 50
Map 2 (Too Small)
Target Districts
103
104
209
212
213
217
220
221
223
225
228
238
242
245
269
275
279
280
283
285
291
292
295
299
Cheylin
White Rock
Moscow Public Schools
Northern Valley
West Solomon Valley Sch.
Rolla
Ashland
North Central
Barnes
Fowler
Hanston
West Smith County
Weskan
Leroy-Gridley
Palco
Triplains
Jewell
West Graham-Morland
Elk Valley
Cedar Vale
Grinnell Public Schools
Wheatland
Prairie Heights
Sylvan Grove
279
Jewell
326
Logan
223
221
496
324
-Barnes
North Central
297
278
507
St. Franc. Com. Sch.
211
218
Norton Comm. Sch.
222
222
219
Mankato
Satanta
Elkhart
-Washington Sch.
Washington Sch.
Minneola
Pawnee Heights
Eastern Heights
241
Wallace Cty. Sch.
281
274
278
281
282
-Hill City
Oakley
Mankato
HillCity
West Elk
294
298
Oberlin
Lincoln
-280
West Graham-Morland
104
269
White Rock
Palco
471
292
291
Dexter
Wheatland
Grinnell Public Schools
Note: District numbers that are bolded and italicized reflect duplicate reconfigurations.
TABLE V-4(A) (Continued)
Other Districts Involved in Reconfiguration
Other Districts
Other Districts
that are
that are not
Map 2 Targets
Map 2 Targets
List of 50
Map 2 (Too Small)
Target Districts
301
Nes Tre La Go
302
Smoky Hill
304
Bazine
314
316
317
324
326
334
369
371
390
399
401
424
433
455
468
471
474
476
481
488
496
502
511
302
304
301
304
301
302
303
Ness City
303
Ness City
303
Ness City
Brewster
315
Golden Plains
Herndon
Eastern Heights
Logan
Southern Cloud
Burrton
Montezuma
Hamilton
Paradise
Chase-Raymond
Mullinville
Midway Schools
Hillcrest Rural Schools
Healy Public Schools
Dexter
Haviland
Copeland
Rural Vista
Axtell
Pawnee Heights
Lewis
Attica
412
318
Colby Public
Schools
Hoxie Com. Sch.
Atwood
440
102
386
270
405
422
430
427
482
-Halstead
Cimarron-Ensign
Madison-Virgil
Plainville
Lyons
Greensburg
South Brown Cty.
Republic County
Dighton
238
212
Smoky Hill
Bazine
Nes Tre La Go
Bazine
Nes Tre La Go
Smoky Hill
West Smith County
Northern Valley
--
474
Haviland
285
424
Cedar Vale
Mullinville
228
--Hanston
422
374
Greensburg
Sublette
---
347
361
Kinsley-Offerle
Anthony-Harper
Note: District numbers that are bolded and italicized reflect duplicate reconfigurations.
TABLE V-4(A) (Continued)
Summary of Reconfiguration
1.
There are 50 target districts that have schools considered to be too small.
2.
We looked at all neighbor districts of those 50 districts and were able to reconfigure 45 of them
taking into consideration the capacity of schools, projected enrollment, and distance from a target
district.
3.
It takes 34 unduplicated reconfigurations to address the needs of those 45 districts.
4.
Of these reconfigurations, 29 involve two-district mergers, four involve three-district mergers, and
one involves a four-district merger.
TABLE V-4(B)
DISTRICTS INVOLVED IN RECONFIGURATION WHERE
TARGET DISTRICTS ARE THOSE WITH SCHOOLS
CONSIDERED TO BE TOO LARGE BASED ON
ENROLLMENT RELATIVE TO NUMBER OF HIGH
SCHOOLS OR WHERE THE DISTRICT ITSELF
IS CONSIDERED TO BE TOO LARGE (MAP 2)
Other Districts Involved in Reconfiguration
Other Districts
Other Districts
that are
that are not
Map 2 Targets
Map 2 Targets
List of 24 Map 2
Target Districts with
Schools that are Too Large
202
229
233
253
260
261
265
266
305
308
Turner-Kansas City
Blue Valley
Olathe
Emporia
Derby
Haysville
Goddard
Maize
Salina
Hutchinson Public Schools
345
373
383
428
437
443
453
457
Seaman
Newton
Manhattan
Great Bend
Auburn Washburn
Dodge City
Leavenworth
Garden City
475
480
489
497
500
501
Geary County Schools
Liberal
Hays
Lawrence
Kansas City
Topeka Public Schools
266
265
------Maize
Goddard
--
267
267
309
313
-----381
-216
363
378
------
Note: District numbers that are bolded and italicized reflect duplicate reconfigurations
------Renwick
Renwick
-Nickerson
Buhler
-----Spearville
-Deerfield
Holcomb
Riley County
------
TABLE V-4(B)
List of Two Map 2
Target Districts
that are Too Large
512
259
Shawnee Mission Public Schools
Wichita
Other Districts Involved in Reconfiguration
Other Districts
Other Districts
that are
that are not
Map 2 Targets
Map 2 Targets
---
---
Summary of Reconfiguration
1.
There are 24 districts that have schools considered to be too large and two districts with
enrollments that are considered to be too large.
2.
We looked at all neighbor districts of those 26 districts and were able to reconfigure six of them
taking into consideration school size, the capacity of schools, projected enrollment, and distance
from a target district.
3.
It takes five unduplicated reconfigurations to address the needs of the six districts.
4.
Of these reconfigurations, three involve two district mergers, and two involve three district
mergers.
TABLE V-5
DISTRICTS INVOLVED IN RECONFIGURATION WHERE
TARGET DISTRICTS ARE THOSE IDENTIFIED IN MAP 1
AND MAP 2 AND SOME ISSUES THAT AROSE IN
MAKING THOSE MAPS ARE RESOLVED (MAP 3)
Districts Involved in Reconfiguration
Other Districts
Other Districts
that are Map 1
that are not Map 1
or Map 2 Targets
or Map 2 Targets
List of Map 3 Target Districts
by Rationale for Selection
Rationale “A”
275
Triplains (1B, 2A)
274
Oakley
283
Elk Valley (1B, 2A)
282
West Elk
285
Cedar Vale (1B, 2A)
317
Herndon (1B, 2A)
318
Atwood
401
Chase-Raymond (1A, 2A)
405
Lyons
455
Hillcrest Rural Schools (1A, 2A)
427
Republic County
471
Dexter (2A)
.
Rationale “B”
202
Turner-Kansas City (1C, 2B)
500
Kansas City (2B)
209
Moscow Public Schools (1A, 2A)
210
Hugoton P.S.
213
West Solomon Valley P.S. (1A, 2A)
211
Norton Comm.
Schools
225
Fowler (1B, 2A)
226
Meade
228
Hanston (1A, 2A)
227
Jetmore
301
Nes Tre La Go (1A, 2A)
302
304
Smoky Hill (2A)
Bazine (2A)
303
Ness City
324
Eastern Heights (1B, 2A)
238
West Smith County (2A)
TABLE V-5 (Continued)
Districts Involved in Reconfiguration
Other Districts
Other Districts
that are Map 1
that are not Map 1
or Map 2 Targets
or Map 2 Targets
List of Map 3 Target Districts
by Rationale for Selection
Rationale “C”
218
Elkhart (1A)
217
Rolla (2A)
222
Washington Schools (1A)
221
223
North Central (2A)
Barnes (2A)
278
Mankato (1C)
104
279
White Rock (2A)
Jewell (2A)
358
Oxford (1C)
509
South Haven (1C)
386
Madison-Virgil (1C)
390
Hamilton (2A)
353
Wellington
Rationale “D”
204
Bonner Springs (1C)
203
Piper-Kansas City
344
Pleasanton (1C)
346
Jayhawk
357
Belle Plaine (1A)
263
Mulvane
360
Caldwell (1C)
359
Argonia P.S.
364
Marysville (1C)
498
Valley Heights
406
Wathena (1B)
486
Elwood
461
Neodesha (1C)
387
Altoona-Midway
463
Udall (1A)
465
Winfield
505
Chetopa (1B)
504
Oswego
TABLE V-5 (Continued)
Districts Involved in Reconfiguration
Other Districts
Other Districts
that are Map 1
that are not Map 1
or Map 2 Targets
or Map 2 Targets
List of Map 3 Target Districts
by Rationale for Selection
Rationale “E”
103
Cheylin (2A)
297
St. Francis Comm.
Schools
242
Weskan (2A)
241
Wallace Co. Schools
280
West Graham-Morland (2A)
281
Hill City
295
Prairie Heights (2A)
294
Oberlin
369
Burrton (2A)
440
Halstead
424
Mullinville (2A)
422
Greensburg
468
Healy Public Schools (2A)
482
Dighton
476
Copeland (2A)
511
Attica (2A)
361
Anthony-Harper
371
Montezuma (2A)
Rationale “F”
245
Leroy-Gridley (2A)
244
Burlington
334
Southern Cloud (2A)
333
Concordia
481
Rural Vista (2A)
487
Herington
488
Axtell (2A)
451
B&B
Rationale “G”
308
Hutchinson Public Schools (2B)
309
313
Nickerson
Buhler
443
Dodge City (2B)
381
Spearville
475
Geary County Schools (2B)
378
Riley County
TABLE V-5 (Continued)
List of Map 3 Target Districts
by Rationale for Selection
Districts Involved in Reconfiguration
Other Districts
Other Districts
that are Map 1
that are not Map 1
or Map 2 Targets
or Map 2 Targets
Rationale “H”
229
Blue Valley (2B)
--
--
233
Olathe (2B)
--
--
253
Emporia (2B)
--
--
260
Derby (2B)
--
--
261
Haysville (2B)
--
--
265
Goddard (2B)
--
--
266
Maize (2B)
--
--
305
Salina (2B)
--
--
345
Seaman (2B)
--
--
373
Newton (2B)
--
--
383
Manhattan (2B)
--
--
428
Great Bend (2B)
--
--
437
Auburn Washburn (2B)
--
--
453
Leavenworth (2B)
--
--
457
Garden City (2B)
--
--
480
Liberal (2B)
--
--
489
Hays (2B)
--
--
497
Lawrence (2B)
--
--
501
Topeka Public Schools (2B)
--
--
TABLE V-5 (Continued)
List of Map 3 Target Districts
by Rationale for Selection
Districts Involved in Reconfiguration
Other Districts
Other Districts
that are Map 1
that are not Map 1
or Map 2 Targets
or Map 2 Targets
Rationale “I”
259
Wichita (2B)
--
--
512
Shawnee Mission (2B)
--
--
Note:
Numbers in parentheses (X) indicate the specific reason for which a district is a target district in
Map 3. All target districts in Map 3 are target districts in Map 1 or Map 2. In the case of Map 1,
three different criteria are used to identify target districts (1A, 1B, or 1C) — see Table V-2 for a
list of the districts that meet those criteria. In the case of Map 2, districts meet criteria related to
being too small (2A) or too large (2B) — see Table V-4(A) and Table V-4(B) for lists of districts
that meet those criteria.
Summary of Reconfiguration
1.
All 28 of the Map 1 target districts are included in Map 3.
2.
36 of the 50 Map 2 target districts (too small) are included in Map 3.
3.
26 of the 26 Map 2 target districts (too large) are included in Map 3.
4.
Of the 64 districts that meet Map 1 or Map 2 (too small) criteria, there are 12 districts that are
duplicates; the 52 unduplicated districts (64 - 12) are all involved in multi-district reconfigurations in
Map 3.
5.
Of the 26 districts that meet Map 2 (too large) criteria, only five are involved in multi-district
reconfigurations and one of those is a duplicate from Map 1; therefore only four districts (5 - 1) are
involved in unduplicated reconfigurations in Map 3.
6.
Therefore, there are 56 unduplicated districts (52 + 4) that are target districts in Map 1 or Map 2
that are involved in multi-district reconfigurations in Map 3.
7.
In addition, 36 other districts that are not target districts in Map 1 or Map 2 are involved in multidistrict reconfigurations in Map 3.
8.
The 92 districts (56 + 36) reconfigured in Map 3 result in 43 new districts, of which 38 are
two-district mergers, four are three-district mergers, and one is a four-district merger.
TABLE V-6
NUMBERS OF DISTRICTS THAT ARE RECONFIGURED
IN ASSOCIATION WITH MAP 1, MAP 2, AND MAP 3
(1)
Number of
Districts that
Meet Criteria
MAP
MAP 1
(2)
Number of
Districts that
A&M Does
Not Reconfigure
(3)
Number of
Districts that
Meet Criteria
and Are Reconfigured
(4)
Number of
Other Districts
that Are Involved in Reconfiguration
(5)
Number of
New Districts
Created
(6)
(7)
Number of Unduplicated
Reconfigurations
Based on the Number
of Districts Merged
2
3
4
5
Total Number
of Districts
in the State
After Reconfiguration
28
8
20
22
20
20
0
0
0
284
Too Small
50
5
45
29
34
29
4
1
0
—
Too Large
26
20
6
7
5
2
3
0
0
—
Map 2 Total
76
25
51
36
39
31
7
1
0
256
Mergers
56
0
56
36
43
38
4
1
0
—
Within District
Changes
21
0
21
0
21
21
0
0
0
—
Map 3 Total
77
0
77
36
64
59
4
1
0
255
MAP 2
MAP 3
Note:
Figures in column (3) = column (1) - column (2); figures in columns under column (6) sum to the figures in column (5); and
figures in column (7) = 304 - column (3) - column (4) + column (5).
MAP 1 Legend
TYPE "A" MERGED
(7)
TYPE "A" NOT MERGED
(4)
TYPE "B" MERGED
(7)
TYPE "B" NOT MERGED
(1)
TYPE "C" MERGED
(6)
TYPE "C" NOT MERGED
(3)
all others
(256)
MAP 1
488
212
317
211
297
103
318
325
294
324
238
427
278
104
237
221
425
451
364
222
441
415
433
455
326
295
279
430
380
498
223
213
224
409
333
316
314
352
412
280
322
384
392
273
323
379
270
321
340 341
383
298
291
292
275
489
407
432
435
305
466
467
200
302
395
482
403
303
428
496
494
215
216
355
376
476
214
218
371
459
344
479
245
390
206
439
490
257
492
366
375
424
422
474
259
256
389
234
235
258
331
332
385
265
268
402
260
261
394
387
205
356
226
300
359
511
255
353
358
361
360
509
249
461
462
503
283
447
465
446
471
470
246
248
101
282
463
357
413
484
396
263
264
219
220
480
362
346
386
373
267
254
483
367
243
252
209
210
416
368
266
374
217
289
290
244
262
438
225
230
365
311
443
507
284
398
440
369
287
288
253
460
312
310
382
452
423
313
502
381
102
421
420
411
308
349
351
347
448
309
231
456
410
419
418
408
350
477
444
401
495
457
363
251
397
228
227
487
481
328
405
348
417
400
304
491 232 233
229
434
454
354
431
512
497
330
306
327
301
204
450
437
473
307
468
202
501
329
393
208
241
242
240
464
458 203
343
475
299
388
293
453
469
342
345
372
274
449
500
320
239
399
339
338
337
378
269
207
336
334
281
377
335
272
271
315
486
429 406
442
426
285
504
506
286
250
247
493
499
436
445
505
508
404
MAP 2 Legend
TOO LARGE DISTRICT
(2)
LARGE H.S. NOT MERGED (18)
LARGE H.S. MERGED
(5)
SMALL H.S. NOT MERGED
(5)
SMALL H.S. MERGED
(34)
all others
(192)
MAP 2
488
212
317
211
297
103
318
325
294
324
238
427
278
104
237
221
425
451
364
222
415
441
433
455
295
326
279
430
380
498
223
213
224
409
333
316
412
280
322
384
392
273
323
379
270
321
340 341
383
274
298
291
292
329
393
489
407
432
435
437
473
305
466
467
200
302
482
428
355
444
448
376
228
215
216
457
363
351
347
477
310
476
214
267
438
371
459
374
225
490
366
375
424
422
474
259
218
483
331
332
402
260
261
394
387
205
234
356
226
300
511
255
353
359
358
361
360
509
249
461
462
283
503
447
465
446
471
470
246
248
101
282
463
357
413
484
396
263
264
219
220
480
235
258
385
265
268
254
210
256
389
209
217
257
492
266
443
507
344
346
479
245
390
206
439
262
382
452
362
244
386
373
311
367
252
398
440
369
312
502
381
102
349
284
416
368
365
460
308
350
494
423
230
289
290
243
411
313
287
288
253
408
309
227
419
418
231
456
410
401
495
421
420
397
405
496
251
328
304
303
348
417
487
481
400
431
403
491 232 233
229
434
454
354
395
512
497
330
306
327
301
204
450
307
468
202
501
240
208
241
242
464
458 203
343
475
299
388
293
453
469
342
345
372
275
449
500
320
239
399
339
338
337
378
269
207
336
334
281
377
335
272
271
315
314
352
486
429 406
442
426
285
504
506
286
250
247
493
499
436
445
505
508
404
MAP 3 Legend
RATIONALE "A"
(6)
RATIONALE "B"
(7)
RATIONALE "C"
(5)
RATIONALE "D"
(9)
RATIONALE "E"
(9)
RATIONALE "F"
(4)
RATIONALE "G"
(3)
RATIONALE "H" (19)
RATIONALE "I"
(2)
all others
(191)
MAP 3
488
212
317
211
297
103
318
325
294
324
238
427
278
104
237
221
222
425
451
364
415
441
433
455
326
295
430
380
498
223
279
213
224
409
333
316
412
280
322
384
392
273
323
379
270
321
340 341
383
298
291
292
275
329
393
489
407
432
435
305
466
467
200
302
395
482
400
403
303
444
428
355
309
228
227
215
216
347
477
381
102
349
351
312
310
476
214
262
371
459
374
490
366
375
424
422
474
259
218
483
331
332
402
260
261
394
234
235
258
387
205
356
396
226
300
359
511
255
353
358
361
360
249
461
462
283
503
447
465
446
471
509
470
246
248
101
282
463
357
413
484
263
264
219
220
480
256
389
385
265
268
254
210
257
492
209
217
245
266
267
438
225
479
390
206
439
344
346
386
373
311
443
507
244
502
382
452
362
252
398
440
369
367
365
460
457
363
416
368
288
284
230
289
243
423
313
308
350
494
231
290
411
448
376
348
287
421
420
253
408
401
495
491 232 233
456
410
419
418
497
229
397
405
496
251
328
304
204
512
434
454
417
487
481
354
431
202
330
306
327
301
469
458 203
450
437
473
307
468
453
501
240
208
241
242
464
343
475
299
388
293
342
345
372
274
449
500
320
239
399
339
338
337
378
269
207
336
334
281
377
335
272
271
315
314
352
486
429 406
442
426
285
504
506
286
250
247
493
499
436
445
505
508
404
Chapter VI
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATUTORY CHANGES
Current Statutes
An essential component in analyzing the process of school district boundary
changes is the Kansas State Statutes. Kansas Statutes found in Chapter 72, Article 71,
Sections 72-7101 through 72-7110, discuss the transfer of school district territory, and
Article 73, Section 72-7301 through 72-7307, address the disorganization of school
districts. Most of the statutes in these two articles are over 20 years old, with almost
half of the statutes being more than 30 years old. In fact, only three statutes were
amended in the 1980s and one statute was amended in 1999.
The statutes address three general areas: election concerns, taxation issues,
indebtedness and actual processes for transferring or disorganizing a district. For this
summary, the focus is solely on the statutes that deal with transferring territory or
disorganizing a district. The following points are important to the discussion of boundary
changes:
•
On the effective date of any transfer, the school district receiving the transfer
assumes the right to all school buildings and furnishings. (7104)
•
On the effective date of any transfer, the school district receiving the transfer
assumes payment of the unpaid bonded indebtedness that incurred prior to the
transfer, except the giving district will be solely liable for the principal and interest
payments on binds which are due or may become due on or before December 1
following the effective date of the transfer. (7104)
•
The giving district will have to make payments to the receiving district in order to
defray the costs of the transfer. (7105a)
•
Transfer of territory can only occur under the following circumstances (7108):
•
Upon written agreement of any two boards and that is approved by the state
board of education.
•
Upon order of the state board of education after the petition by one board and
a public hearing conducted by the state board of education.
•
The effective date of any such transfer shall be the date of approval or the
following July 1.
VI-1
•
•
•
•
If a public hearing is necessary, notice will be given for two consecutive
weeks in a local newspaper in the district from which the territory is to be
transferred. The notice must circulate at least 10 days prior and not less than
three days prior to the hearing. The time and place must be clearly stated in
the notice along with a summary of the transfer proposal.
•
Within 90 days of receiving the petition or after the hearing, the state board of
education will issue an order approving or not approving the transfer.
•
If the petition is denied, there is a two-year waiting period before another
petition can be made to the state board of education.
A school district can be disorganized under the following circumstances (7301):
•
Upon petition of the board of education of a school district for disorganization
and attachment of that district to another territory to the state board of
education.
•
The state board of education will consider disorganization if it finds that there
is only one high school in the district and it cannot meet the 30 unit minimum
accreditation requirement, or if it finds that the district fails to meet the
minimum requirements for the establishment of a district. The disorganization
must also improve the educational system of the state and the area in which it
is taking place.
•
The effective date of any disorganization will be by order of the state board of
education, usually July 1.
Voters can petition for a disorganization of a district. The petition must be filed with
the county election officer and no election can occur between January 1 and July 1
of any year. (7302)
•
There is a two-year waiting period between petitions.
•
All disorganizations are effective on July 1.
The following procedures are required for the disorganization of one district and its
attachment to one or more other districts (7304 and 7305):
•
An election will be held in the school district proposed to be disorganized.
•
The election proposal will include the specific concerns regarding the
disorganization and attachment, including information on indebtedness.
VI-2
•
If the vote passes, the county clerk certifies this to the board(s) of education
of the district(s) to which the territory is to be attached and the board of the
district to be disorganized, and to the state board of education.
•
The board of education of the district which will have territory attached has 30
days to approve or reject the proposal. They then give the acceptance or
rejection to the state board of education.
•
The state board of education then has 30 days to issue an order in
accordance with the resolution for disorganization and attachment.
•
All disorganizations under this section will be effective on July 1 following the
election approving the disorganization.
•
For taxation purposes, the territory is transferred on Dec. 31 preceding the
July 1.
•
On July 1 the property, records, and all funds, on hand or to be collected, of
the disorganized district will be given to the receiving district.
The above points illustrate the detailed procedures required by the state
regarding the transfer and consolidation of school district territory. It is important to
remember that there are numerous other statutes included in Chapter 72, Articles 71
and 73 that are concerned with taxation and indebtedness issues. Within these other
statutes there are more complicated and detailed requirements for transferring territory
or changing school district boundaries.
Recommendations
In order to meet the recommendations of this study, statutory changes will be
needed. The review of some of the important relevant statutes above suggests places
that will need to be amended. The laws that were used in the 1960's to unify school
districts were repealed. Article 67 of Chapter 72 created a process for the entire state
that involved planning boards and county superintendents of education in the drawing of
school district boundaries. A&M would recommend a similar process for targeted school
districts based on the identification of certain school districts that are not effective or
efficient.
In the 1960's the County Superintendent helped facilitate the unification and
consolidation process. The County Superintendent position no longer exists in Kansas.
We recommend that the legislature delegate to the State Board of Education powers to
change school district boundaries in a more direct way than currently exists in the
statutes cited above. The planning for school district change would primarily be a
function of the State Board of Education working with local school districts as described
below.
VI-3
This study has shown the need for three levels of state involvement in the school
district boundary issue. We recommend that new statutes be adopted to create three
different levels of state involvement: (1) Emergency school district dissolution, (2)
Required boundary change planning, and, (3) Review of boundary options.
Emergency dissolution
The first recommendation for state involvement would be for the small number of
districts that are very small and declining in size. For these districts we would
recommend that the legislature set two enrollment levels such as: (1) less than 80
students on September 20, 2000 and (2) less than 100 on September 20, 2001.
All school boards that are declining in enrollment and less that 80 students on
September 20, 2000, would be required to hold a public hearing concerning the
dissolution of the district by July 1, 2001. The school board shall report the
recommendations for dissolution that came from the public hearing to the State Board of
Education. We recommend that the legislature require the State Board of Education to
take action by August 15, 2001, in prescribing the reorganization of the identified school
districts in the manner proposed by the local school board or in any manner the State
Board shall amend the recommendation for dissolution. (This action is needed because
of a compelling need in certain districts. It will require swift action by the legislature,
school boards, and the State Board of Education).
We recommend a similar process for districts with declining enrollments and less
than 100 students on September 20, 2001. Those school districts would be required to
hold a public hearing on possible options for dissolution of the district by December 15,
2001. The school board report on recommendations from the public hearing would be
due so the State Board of Education could take action by February 28, 2002, with the
effect of the action implemented by July 1, 2002. The legislature may wish to follow this
schedule annually for any districts that meet these criteria in the future.
Required Boundary Change Planning
We recommend that the legislature delegate to the State Board of Education the
responsibly for oversight of a boundary change planning process for all school districts
identified as target districts on map one that were not in the emergency dissolution
group. The process could extend over a three-year period of time. During that period
the school district could work to change from a high spending, low performing district to
a district that no longer met the target levels. During this effort, the district would be
required to work with neighboring districts to find a possible voluntary boundary change
that could assist with the possible change. Maps 1, 2, and 3 provide some options for
consideration. If the school district has improved student performance and reduced per
pupil spending, a plan to continue to address those issues would not require a plan for
VI-4
dissolution. At the end of the three years, if the districts is still a target and no voluntary
boundary change has been made, we recommend that the State Board require that a
hearing for dissolution be held, a report be made to the State Board, and the State
Board shall accept or modify the dissolution plan.
Review of Boundary Options
We recommend that all districts identified as target districts on Map 2 be asked to
follow the same procedure as the required boundary change planning districts, without
the final requirement of emergency dissolution. The State Board of Education would
encourage school districts and their neighbors to identify possible changes in school
district and school size that would remove the districts from the group of target districts.
The legislature should make it clear that the State Board of Education has the authority
to take action in changing school district boundaries if a district or a group of districts
submits a request for change.
Other Statutory Issues
The 1999 Legislature provided that any school district formed by consolidation
will be entitled to state financial aid equal to the amount of former districts for two years.
We recommend that elimination of fiscal disincentive be granted for a longer period of
time: 3-5 years. In light of the number of new districts that are likely to be created with
this new approach, a further review of this issue may lead to additional changes.
The current school building closing laws are not consistent for the entire state,
and could be in conflict with the school board plans we are recommending. We
recognize that efficiencies are gained by closing school facilities; still these decisions
have been local. We recommend that the decisions for closing buildings be left to local
school boards and that existing statutes be changed to make this a statewide policy.
New school facilities are being built and major renovation of existing building are
currently being completed in places where there may not be enough students in the
future to warrant the public investment. We recommend a that the legislature direct the
State Board of Education to establish procedures for a review of school district building
plans that considers the possibility of future school district boundary changes.
VI-5
APPENDIX I
ENROLLMENT DATA FOR ALL DISTRICTS
District #
D0101
D0102
D0103
D0104
D0200
D0202
D0203
D0204
D0205
D0206
D0207
D0208
D0209
D0210
D0211
D0212
D0213
D0214
D0215
D0216
D0217
D0218
D0219
D0220
D0221
D0222
D0223
D0224
D0225
D0226
D0227
D0228
District
ERIE-ST PAUL
CIMARRON-ENSIGN
CHEYLIN
WHITE ROCK
GREELEY COUNTY
TURNER-KANSAS CITY
PIPER-KANSAS CITY
BONNER SPRINGS
LEON
REMINGTON-WHITEWATER
FT LEAVENWORTH
WAKEENEY
MOSCOW PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HUGOTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
NORTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
NORTHERN VALLEY
WEST SOLOMON VALLEY SCHOOLS
ULYSSES
LAKIN
DEERFIELD
ROLLA
ELKHART
MINNEOLA
ASHLAND
NORTH CENTRAL
WASHINGTON SCHOOLS
BARNES
REPUBLICAN VALLEY
FOWLER
MEADE
JETMORE
HANSTON
County
NEOSHO
GRAY
CHEYENNE
JEWELL
GREELEY
WYANDOTTE
WYANDOTTE
WYANDOTTE
BUTLER
BUTLER
LEAVENWORTH
TREGO
STEVENS
STEVENS
NORTON
NORTON
NORTON
GRANT
KEARNY
KEARNY
MORTON
MORTON
CLARK
CLARK
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
MEADE
MEADE
HODGEMAN
HODGEMAN
9-20-89
FTE
9-20-93
FTE
9-20-98
FTE
1,091.50
567.5
209.5
177
351.5
3,812.30
1,014.50
2,047.50
718.5
487.5
1,774.00
630.5
159
890
712.9
180.5
113
1,575.70
649.3
250.5
215
563.5
200
246.1
180.5
418.5
396
388
143.9
403.5
235.5
150.5
1,168.50
618.8
222.5
194
352.5
3,786.40
1,212.60
2,013.00
823.6
550
1,845.50
677.1
180.5
976.5
752
205
96.5
1,699.10
734.3
337.7
196.5
529.5
258.5
256.5
164.5
396.2
371.3
392
153.5
427.5
294.5
151
1,182.40
634.4
192
199.5
320
3,640.90
1,282.00
2,129.50
775.7
548.5
1,686.00
571.5
192.2
956.5
746.2
197.5
94.5
1,769.60
730.5
374.7
206.3
550.5
277.5
246.5
160.5
375
393.9
388.6
169.6
441
331.5
138.5
% Change % Change
Projected
over 10over 5# of High Enrollment Enrollment
years
years
Schools
per HS
2004-05
8%
12%
-8%
13%
-9%
-4%
26%
4%
8%
13%
-5%
-9%
21%
7%
5%
9%
-16%
12%
13%
50%
-4%
-2%
39%
0%
-11%
-10%
-1%
0%
18%
9%
41%
-8%
1%
2%
-12%
7%
-9%
-6%
3%
7%
-4%
-1%
-9%
-11%
-4%
-5%
-5%
-4%
-5%
5%
0%
2%
4%
2%
4%
-8%
0%
-10%
11%
3%
4%
7%
10%
-1%
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
394
634
192
200
320
3,641
1,282
2,130
776
549
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
572
192
957
746
198
95
1,770
731
375
206
551
278
247
161
375
197
389
170
441
332
139
1,060.0
610.0
174.0
125.0
290.0
3,300.0
1,417.0
2,325.0
800.0
570.0
1,790.0
409.0
194.0
1,000.0
690.0
159.0
93.0
1,707.5
760.0
348.0
220.0
500.0
269.0
245.0
112.0
324.0
290.4
304.0
142.0
465.0
332.0
99.0
District #
D0229
D0230
D0231
D0232
D0233
D0234
D0235
D0237
D0238
D0239
D0240
D0241
D0242
D0243
D0244
D0245
D0246
D0247
D0248
D0249
D0250
D0251
D0252
D0253
D0254
D0255
D0256
D0257
D0258
D0259
D0260
D0261
D0262
D0263
D0264
D0265
D0266
District
SOUTHEAST JOHNSON CO
SPRING HILL
GARDNER-EDGERTON-ANTIOCH
DESOTO
OLATHE
FT SCOTT
UNIONTOWN
SMITH CENTER
WEST SMITH COUNTY
NORTH OTTAWA COUNTY
TWIN VALLEY
WALLACE COUNTY SCHOOLS
WESKAN
LEBO-WAVERLY
BURLINGTON
LEROY-GRIDLEY
NORTHEAST
CHEROKEE
GIRARD
FRONTENAC PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PITTSBURG
NORTH LYON COUNTY
SOUTHERN LYON COUNTY
EMPORIA
BARBER COUNTY NORTH
SOUTH BARBER
MARMATON VALLEY
IOLA
HUMBOLDT
WICHITA
DERBY
HAYSVILLE
VALLEY CENTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MULVANE
CLEARWATER
GODDARD
MAIZE
County
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
BOURBON
BOURBON
SMITH
SMITH
OTTAWA
OTTAWA
WALLACE
WALLACE
COFFEY
COFFEY
COFFEY
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
LYON
LYON
LYON
BARBER
BARBER
ALLEN
ALLEN
ALLEN
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
9-20-89
FTE
9-20-93
FTE
9-20-98
FTE
8,193.90 11,569.60 15,418.50
1,234.40 1,245.80 1,353.50
1,625.30 1,803.60 2,384.30
1,697.50 1,829.50 2,515.00
13,300.20 15,831.70 18,626.80
2,053.60 2,105.00 2,114.60
500.5
458.5
498.8
637.9
631.5
585.3
213
191.5
195.5
652
728
687.1
470.5
468.5
627.1
286.1
298.5
306
101
119.5
125
491
578.5
581.5
847.2
975
918
322.5
351
365
587
605.7
577
774.4
835.5
842.8
1,075.00 1,125.50 1,130.50
471
522
657.3
2,732.80 2,959.00 2,579.80
695.1
733
715.5
525
599
658.5
4,550.00 4,622.00 4,570.20
787
758.8
758.9
311.5
357
325
319
375
415
1,775.10 1,833.50 1,672.70
646.5
619
535.9
43,941.80 44,792.00 44,924.60
5,693.70 6,198.10 6,673.00
3,281.90 3,582.90 4,197.50
2,004.60 2,146.90 2,303.00
1,802.90 1,918.20 1,937.50
974 1,038.00 1,144.70
1,921.90 2,349.00 3,259.80
2,197.30 3,542.40 4,895.30
% Change % Change
Projected
over 10over 5# of High Enrollment Enrollment
years
years
Schools
per HS
2004-05
88%
10%
47%
48%
40%
3%
0%
-8%
-8%
5%
33%
7%
24%
18%
8%
13%
-2%
9%
5%
40%
-6%
3%
25%
0%
-4%
4%
30%
-6%
-17%
2%
17%
28%
15%
7%
18%
70%
123%
26%
7%
25%
29%
14%
0%
9%
-8%
-3%
-6%
12%
5%
-1%
-2%
-5%
-1%
-9%
2%
1%
13%
-9%
-2%
1%
1%
2%
-12%
11%
-8%
-14%
3%
5%
16%
5%
3%
9%
32%
29%
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5,140
1,354
2,384
2,515
6,209
2,115
499
585
196
687
314
306
125
291
918
183
577
843
1,131
657
2,580
716
329
4,570
759
325
415
1,673
536
6,418
6,673
4,198
2,303
1,938
1,145
3,260
4,895
19,160.0
1,725.0
3,590.0
4,587.0
22,139.6
2,115.0
500.0
447.0
190.0
610.0
1,100.0
225.0
128.0
597.0
715.5
303.0
532.0
820.0
1,115.0
690.0
2,310.0
563.0
625.0
4,684.0
625.0
269.0
326.0
1,451.0
510.0
45,305.4
7,400.0
4,562.0
2,390.0
2,061.8
1,280.0
4,631.0
5,636.0
District #
D0267
D0268
D0269
D0270
D0271
D0272
D0273
D0274
D0275
D0278
D0279
D0280
D0281
D0282
D0283
D0284
D0285
D0286
D0287
D0288
D0289
D0290
D0291
D0292
D0293
D0294
D0295
D0297
D0298
D0299
D0300
D0301
D0302
D0303
D0304
D0305
D0306
District
RENWICK
CHENEY
PALCO
PLAINVILLE
STOCKTON
WACONDA
BELOIT
OAKLEY
TRIPLAINS
MANKATO
JEWELL
WEST GRAHAM-MORLAND
HILL CITY
WEST ELK
ELK VALLEY
CHASE COUNTY
CEDAR VALE
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY COMMUNITY
WEST FRANKLIN
CENTRAL HEIGHTS
WELLSVILLE
OTTAWA
GRINNELL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
GRAINFIELD
QUINTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
OBERLIN
PRAIRIE HEIGHTS
ST FRANCIS COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
LINCOLN
SYLVAN GROVE
COMMANCHE COUNTY
NES TRES LA GO
SMOKY HILL
NESS CITY
BAZINE
SALINA
SOUTHEAST OF SALINE
County
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
ROOKS
ROOKS
ROOKS
MITCHELL
MITCHELL
LOGAN
LOGAN
JEWELL
JEWELL
GRAHAM
GRAHAM
ELK
ELK
CHASE
CHAUTAUQUA
CHAUTAUQUA
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
GOVE
GOVE
GOVE
DECATUR
DECATUR
CHEYENNE
LINCOLN
LINCOLN
COMANCHE
NESS
NESS
NESS
NESS
SALINE
SALINE
9-20-89
FTE
9-20-93
FTE
9-20-98
FTE
1,374.00
527.2
178
488
400.5
568.5
773.3
472.7
110
292.5
198.5
121
518
454.5
176.5
548.5
199
483.5
768
512.5
709.9
2,211.30
145.5
194.4
355
578.5
122.5
418
424.5
217
413.5
85
197.5
333.5
116.5
6,787.40
581.5
1,469.00
666.2
178.6
485.7
439
581
817
503.9
110.5
303
203
118.6
536.3
508.5
206.1
556.7
174
470.4
821.5
621.3
763.5
2,329.10
165
167
370
613
96.5
435
405
195
410.5
79.5
193.5
357.5
135.5
7,334.70
609.5
1,808.00
709.6
178.5
453.3
439.6
558.8
807.2
509.5
92.5
274.5
186
91
426
524
219
492.6
205.5
509.3
918.4
702
768.5
2,287.90
160
184
390
557.5
91.5
441
411.5
205
358.6
76
160.5
289
112
7,257.00
678.6
% Change % Change
Projected
over 10over 5# of High Enrollment Enrollment
years
years
Schools
per HS
2004-05
32%
35%
0%
-7%
10%
-2%
4%
8%
-16%
-6%
-6%
-25%
-18%
15%
24%
-10%
3%
5%
20%
37%
8%
3%
10%
-5%
10%
-4%
-25%
6%
-3%
-6%
-13%
-11%
-19%
-13%
-4%
7%
17%
19%
3%
6%
-12%
1%
-4%
-2%
-4%
-23%
-10%
-11%
-15%
-18%
-3%
-8%
-13%
6%
4%
11%
10%
3%
-3%
-2%
6%
8%
-10%
2%
1%
0%
9%
-14%
1%
-12%
-15%
-13%
0%
10%
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
904
710
179
453
440
279
807
510
93
275
186
91
426
524
219
493
206
509
459
702
769
2,288
160
184
390
558
92
441
412
205
359
76
161
289
112
3,629
679
2,100.0
785.0
133.0
400.0
387.0
409.0
776.0
430.0
79.5
245.0
175.0
56.0
329.0
470.0
205.0
442.5
214.0
515.0
1,000.0
575.0
889.0
2,370.0
110.5
170.0
371.0
460.0
54.5
356.0
390.0
140.0
294.5
50.0
114.5
212.5
80.0
7,345.0
685.0
District #
D0307
D0308
D0309
D0310
D0311
D0312
D0313
D0314
D0315
D0316
D0317
D0318
D0320
D0321
D0322
D0323
D0324
D0325
D0326
D0327
D0328
D0329
D0330
D0331
D0332
D0333
D0334
D0335
D0336
D0337
D0338
D0339
D0340
D0341
D0342
D0343
D0344
District
ELL-SALINE
HUTCHINSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
NICKERSON
FAIRFIELD
PRETTY PRAIRIE
HAVEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BUHLER
BREWSTER
COLBY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
GOLDEN PLAINS
HERNDON
ATWOOD
WAMEGO
KAW VALLEY
ONAGA-HAVENSVILLE-WHEATON
WESTMORELAND
EASTERN HEIGHTS
PHILLIPSBURG
LOGAN
ELLSWORTH
LORRAINE
ALMA
WABAUNSEE EAST
KINGMAN
CUNNINGHAM
CONCORDIA
SOUTHERN CLOUD
NORTH JACKSON
HOLTON
MAYETTA
VALLEY FALLS
JEFFERSON COUNTY NORTH
JEFFERSON WEST
OSKALOOSA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MCLOUTH
PERRY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PLEASANTON
County
SALINE
RENO
RENO
RENO
RENO
RENO
RENO
THOMAS
THOMAS
THOMAS
RAWLINS
RAWLINS
POTTAWATOMIE
POTTAWATOMIE
POTTAWATOMIE
POTTAWATOMIE
PHILLIPS
PHILLIPS
PHILLIPS
ELLSWORTH
ELLSWORTH
WABAUNSEE
WABAUNSEE
KINGMAN
KINGMAN
CLOUD
CLOUD
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
LINN
9-20-89
FTE
9-20-93
FTE
9-20-98
FTE
359
4,932.60
1,418.50
482.5
257.5
1,164.70
2,117.50
141.5
1,241.50
143
72
482.5
1,262.00
979
428.5
591.5
159
700.6
226.5
740.7
496.6
531.9
580.9
1,056.20
315
1,341.50
258
415
934.5
766.5
483
446
695.5
546.5
518.5
872
424.7
403.1
5,156.00
1,421.80
477.5
306.5
1,165.50
2,199.00
146.5
1,300.50
151.5
86.5
478
1,386.90
1,029.00
461.5
698.8
172
729.2
221
869
559.1
585.3
616
1,227.40
316.5
1,330.50
263
411.5
1,001.00
822.5
483
453.7
846.1
706.5
564.5
995.6
420.5
460.4
4,892.10
1,358.00
448.3
326.8
1,122.90
2,212.20
160.5
1,122.20
176
100
434.5
1,412.40
1,068.50
422.3
775.4
194.5
696.8
208.1
753.5
557.5
557.6
635.5
1,217.80
333.5
1,308.10
272.5
431.8
1,086.10
854.1
462
481.1
944.3
724
577.1
1,045.10
425
% Change % Change
Projected
over 10over 5# of High Enrollment Enrollment
years
years
Schools
per HS
2004-05
28%
-1%
-4%
-7%
27%
-4%
4%
13%
-10%
23%
39%
-10%
12%
9%
-1%
31%
22%
-1%
-8%
2%
12%
5%
9%
15%
6%
-2%
6%
4%
16%
11%
-4%
8%
36%
32%
11%
20%
0%
9%
-3%
-6%
-5%
2%
-5%
1%
8%
-15%
7%
-12%
-7%
0%
1%
-6%
3%
12%
-5%
-6%
-14%
1%
-4%
-2%
0%
4%
-3%
2%
4%
8%
3%
-7%
0%
6%
-1%
5%
-1%
1%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
460
4,892
1,358
448
327
1,123
2,212
161
1,122
176
100
435
1,412
534
422
775
195
697
208
754
279
558
636
609
334
1,308
136
432
1,086
854
462
481
944
724
577
1,045
425
540.0
4,700.0
1,215.5
425.0
295.0
925.0
2,407.0
145.0
970.0
155.0
62.0
303.0
1,410.0
1,021.0
318.5
890.0
175.0
602.0
200.0
604.5
560.0
530.0
550.0
1,245.0
293.0
1,200.0
196.0
420.0
1,062.0
874.0
448.0
460.0
740.0
527.0
975.0
400.0
District #
D0345
D0346
D0347
D0348
D0349
D0350
D0351
D0352
D0353
D0354
D0355
D0356
D0357
D0358
D0359
D0360
D0361
D0362
D0363
D0364
D0365
D0366
D0367
D0368
D0369
D0371
D0372
D0373
D0374
D0375
D0376
D0377
D0378
D0379
D0380
D0381
D0382
District
SEAMAN
JAYHAWK
KINSLEY-OFFERLE
BALDWIN CITY
STAFFORD
ST JOHN-HUDSON
MACKSVILLE
GOODLAND
WELLINGTON
CLAFLIN
ELLINWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CONWAY SPRINGS
BELLE PLAINE
OXFORD
ARGONIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CALDWELL
ANTHONY-HARPER
PRAIRIE VIEW
HOLCOMB
MARYSVILLE
GARNETT
WOODSON
OSAWATOMIE
PAOLA
BURRTON
MONTEZUMA
SILVER LAKE
NEWTON
SUBLETTE
CIRCLE
STERLING
ATCHISON CO COMM SCHOOLS
RILEY COUNTY
CLAY CENTER
VERMILLION
SPEARVILLE-WINDTHORST
PRATT
County
SHAWNEE
LINN
EDWARDS
DOUGLAS
STAFFORD
STAFFORD
STAFFORD
SHERMAN
SUMNER
BARTON
BARTON
SUMNER
SUMNER
SUMNER
SUMNER
SUMNER
HARPER
LINN
FINNEY
MARSHALL
ANDERSON
WOODSON
MIAMI
MIAMI
HARVEY
GRAY
SHAWNEE
HARVEY
HASKELL
BUTLER
RICE
ATCHISON
RILEY
CLAY
MARSHALL
FORD
PRATT
9-20-89
FTE
9-20-93
FTE
9-20-98
FTE
3,247.70
548.5
401.7
962.4
272.5
426
284.5
1,206.00
1,910.50
240
559.1
448.1
709
424
224
329
1,049.00
821.3
659.5
976
959.1
574
1,112.90
1,576.50
294.9
212
605.5
3,200.40
504.5
1,259.00
533
783
550.4
1,530.60
592.9
246
1,344.20
3,379.50
563.5
421.5
1,126.70
316.5
472.5
278.5
1,195.10
2,028.40
329
576.8
485.2
773.5
465.5
243
337.5
1,052.80
887.4
727.5
1,025.50
1,082.50
631.5
1,137.50
1,776.60
291.5
181.5
660.1
3,467.30
517
1,384.50
549
819.5
645.5
1,699.80
645.5
305.9
1,350.00
3,179.70
600
355.5
1,241.40
337.8
443.5
295
1,155.50
1,970.60
324.7
601.2
551.8
836.5
456.5
270
344
1,078.90
911.4
870
970.8
1,121.70
619.6
1,253.00
2,055.00
245.5
215
695.2
3,465.30
494
1,406.00
531.5
805.5
625.1
1,589.10
629.1
362
1,374.00
% Change % Change
Projected
over 10over 5# of High Enrollment Enrollment
years
years
Schools
per HS
2004-05
-2%
9%
-12%
29%
24%
4%
4%
-4%
3%
35%
8%
23%
18%
8%
21%
5%
3%
11%
32%
-1%
17%
8%
13%
30%
-17%
1%
15%
8%
-2%
12%
0%
3%
14%
4%
6%
47%
2%
-6%
7%
-21%
5%
3%
-6%
3%
-4%
-2%
-5%
4%
15%
4%
6%
5%
-1%
4%
3%
16%
-6%
4%
-3%
7%
10%
-20%
18%
6%
1%
0%
2%
-5%
-4%
-6%
-7%
-4%
14%
-2%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3,180
600
356
1,241
338
444
295
1,156
1,971
325
601
552
837
457
270
344
1,079
911
870
971
1,122
620
1,253
2,055
246
215
695
3,465
494
1,406
532
806
625
795
315
362
1,374
3,200.0
550.5
280.0
1,295.0
304.0
340.0
272.0
1,098.0
1,713.0
285.0
541.0
570.0
830.0
450.0
268.0
274.5
1,000.0
990.0
1,052.0
860.0
1,122.0
475.0
1,228.0
2,050.0
245.0
224.0
755.0
3,284.5
487.9
1,620.0
500.0
750.0
474.0
1,510.0
506.0
323.0
1,081.0
District #
D0383
D0384
D0385
D0386
D0387
D0388
D0389
D0390
D0392
D0393
D0394
D0395
D0396
D0397
D0398
D0399
D0400
D0401
D0402
D0403
D0404
D0405
D0406
D0407
D0408
D0409
D0410
D0411
D0412
D0413
D0415
D0416
D0417
D0418
D0419
D0420
D0421
District
MANHATTAN
BLUE VALLEY
ANDOVER
MADISON-VIRGIL
ALTOONA-MIDWAY
ELLIS
EUREKA
HAMILTON
OSBORNE COUNTY
SOLOMON
ROSE HILL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LACROSSE
DOUGLASS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CENTRE
PEABODY-BURNS
PARADISE
LINDSBORG
CHASE
AUGUSTA
OTIS-BISON
RIVERTON
LYONS
WATHENA
RUSSELL COUNTY
MARION
ATCHISON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DURHAM-HILLSBORO-LEHIGH
GOESSEL
HOXIE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
CHANUTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HIAWATHA
LOUISBURG
MORRIS COUNTY
MCPHERSON
CANTON-GALVA
OSAGE CITY
LYNDON
County
RILEY
RILEY
BUTLER
GREENWOOD
WILSON
ELLIS
GREENWOOD
GREENWOOD
OSBORNE
DICKINSON
BUTLER
RUSH
BUTLER
MARION
MARION
RUSSELL
MCPHERSON
RICE
BUTLER
RUSH
CHEROKEE
RICE
DONIPHAN
RUSSELL
MARION
ATCHISON
MARION
MARION
SHERIDAN
NEOSHO
BROWN
MIAMI
MORRIS
MCPHERSON
MCPHERSON
OSAGE
OSAGE
9-20-89
FTE
9-20-93
FTE
9-20-98
FTE
6,010.10
273
1,620.00
288.1
387.9
365.5
751.2
126.5
455
325
1,333.00
342.4
725.6
306.1
403.5
172.4
845
180.5
1,904.40
344
701.8
785.5
489
1,211.50
572
1,709.40
589
245.5
527
1,856.80
1,215.50
1,071.00
1,023.00
2,370.20
402.7
600.6
400.5
6,456.60
293.5
1,989.50
296.4
375
375.2
849.3
125.5
483.5
374.5
1,589.20
357
782.1
288
442.8
109.8
933
194.5
2,193.10
357
743.5
880.8
485
1,204.60
645
1,682.90
641.6
283.5
492.5
1,995.30
1,228.20
1,140.00
1,078.00
2,652.30
476.5
626.5
463.5
5,819.40
302.5
2,791.40
282
359.5
368
795.5
122
496
427.2
1,755.00
357.4
904.4
306.9
466.5
154
990.3
182
2,226.70
335.5
828.3
934.1
402
1,165.50
725.7
1,616.00
735.8
316.4
447
1,954.90
1,095.80
1,303.00
1,036.10
2,710.50
425.9
745
507
% Change % Change
Projected
over 10over 5# of High Enrollment Enrollment
years
years
Schools
per HS
2004-05
-3%
11%
72%
-2%
-7%
1%
6%
-4%
9%
31%
32%
4%
25%
0%
16%
-11%
17%
1%
17%
-2%
18%
19%
-18%
-4%
27%
-5%
25%
29%
-15%
5%
-10%
22%
1%
14%
6%
24%
27%
-9%
-2%
31%
-9%
-5%
-5%
-6%
-6%
-4%
5%
7%
-2%
7%
2%
5%
28%
0%
-10%
6%
-6%
9%
8%
-12%
-5%
6%
-1%
8%
-2%
-7%
-1%
-9%
10%
-6%
2%
-10%
16%
1%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5,819
303
2,791
282
360
368
796
122
496
427
1,755
357
904
307
467
154
990
182
2,227
336
828
934
402
583
726
1,616
736
316
447
1,955
1,096
1,303
1,036
2,711
426
745
507
5,499.0
274.0
3,485.0
264.0
293.5
340.0
785.0
122.0
475.0
453.0
1,980.0
320.0
257.0
426.5
121.0
955.0
187.0
2,425.5
200.0
805.0
880.0
380.0
1,049.0
730.0
1,640.0
640.0
288.5
350.0
1,751.0
925.4
1,540.0
910.0
2,425.0
410.0
780.0
411.0
District #
D0422
D0423
D0424
D0425
D0426
D0427
D0428
D0429
D0430
D0431
D0432
D0433
D0434
D0435
D0436
D0437
D0438
D0439
D0440
D0441
D0442
D0443
D0444
D0445
D0446
D0447
D0448
D0449
D0450
D0451
D0452
D0453
D0454
D0455
D0456
D0457
D0458
District
GREENSBURG
MOUNDRIDGE
MULLINVILLE
HIGHLAND
PIKE VALLEY
BELLEVILLE
GREAT BEND
TROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BROWN COUNTY
HOISINGTON
VICTORIA
MIDWAY SCHOOLS
SANTA FE TRAIL
ABILENE
CANEY VALLEY
AUBURN WASHBURN
SKYLINE SCHOOLS
SEDGWICK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HALSTEAD
SABETHA
NEMAHA VALLEY SCHOOLS
DODGE CITY
LITTLE RIVER
COFFEYVILLE
INDEPENDENCE
CHERRYVALE
INMAN
EASTON
SHAWNEE HEIGHTS
B&B
STANTON COUNTY
LEAVENWORTH
BURLINGAME PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HILLCREST RURAL SCHOOLS
MARAIS DES CYGNES VALLEY
GARDEN CITY
BASEHOR-LINWOOD
County
KIOWA
MCPHERSON
KIOWA
DONIPHAN
REPUBLIC
REPUBLIC
BARTON
DONIPHAN
BROWN
BARTON
ELLIS
DONIPHAN
OSAGE
DICKINSON
MONTGOMERY
SHAWNEE
PRATT
HARVEY
HARVEY
NEMAHA
NEMAHA
FORD
RICE
MONTGOMERY
MONTGOMERY
MONTGOMERY
MCPHERSON
LEAVENWORTH
SHAWNEE
NEMAHA
STANTON
LEAVENWORTH
OSAGE
REPUBLIC
OSAGE
FINNEY
LEAVENWORTH
9-20-89
FTE
9-20-93
FTE
9-20-98
FTE
404.5
427.5
112
275
260.5
619.5
3,321.40
374.2
633.9
716.6
397
205
1,219.70
1,354.80
765.7
3,749.30
358
398
745
1,006.10
376.1
4,138.20
378.5
2,712.10
2,357.50
626.5
410.5
652.5
3,303.10
218.5
521.5
4,265.10
346.4
128.5
295.5
6,077.20
1,210.50
352
469
100.5
292.5
281
671
3,393.50
438.5
697.7
821.9
369
221
1,291.60
1,479.50
804
4,690.70
371
389.5
739
1,064.00
497.2
4,470.30
279.5
2,540.60
2,326.90
644
463.5
609.9
3,380.50
245.5
537.8
4,324.30
368.5
152
272
6,745.10
1,506.40
294
452.1
109
278.5
300
605.5
3,158.50
398.5
725.3
744.4
302
232
1,317.50
1,505.50
959.5
4,956.50
346
463
750.7
1,039.00
516.7
4,916.90
275.7
2,235.50
2,220.70
676.2
486
703.6
3,384.40
270
539.5
4,040.60
364.9
153.6
289.5
7,099.50
1,691.50
% Change % Change
Projected
over 10over 5# of High Enrollment Enrollment
years
years
Schools
per HS
2004-05
-27%
6%
-3%
1%
15%
-2%
-5%
6%
14%
4%
-24%
13%
8%
11%
25%
32%
-3%
16%
1%
3%
37%
19%
-27%
-18%
-6%
8%
18%
8%
2%
24%
3%
-5%
5%
20%
-2%
17%
40%
-21%
0%
8%
-4%
2%
-9%
-6%
-8%
3%
-11%
-13%
6%
-3%
1%
18%
2%
-4%
13%
-2%
-3%
0%
7%
-3%
-10%
-4%
5%
1%
7%
0%
8%
-2%
-7%
0%
-9%
-1%
4%
9%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
294
452
109
279
300
606
3,159
399
725
744
302
232
1,318
1,506
960
4,957
346
463
751
520
517
4,917
276
2,236
2,221
676
486
704
1,692
270
540
4,041
365
154
290
7,100
1,692
269.0
500.0
100.0
260.0
270.0
470.0
2,678.3
375.0
700.0
690.0
249.0
199.0
1,335.0
1,322.0
930.0
5,100.0
360.0
513.0
770.0
1,002.0
490.0
5,485.0
260.0
2,100.0
2,220.0
315.0
442.0
710.0
3,221.0
224.5
490.0
4,000.0
375.0
127.0
288.0
7,718.7
2,275.0
District #
D0459
D0460
D0461
D0462
D0463
D0464
D0465
D0466
D0467
D0468
D0469
D0470
D0471
D0473
D0474
D0475
D0476
D0477
D0479
D0480
D0481
D0482
D0483
D0484
D0486
D0487
D0488
D0489
D0490
D0491
D0492
D0493
D0494
D0495
D0496
D0497
D0498
District
BUCKLIN
HESSTON
NEODESHA
CENTRAL
UDALL
TONGANOXIE
WINFIELD
SCOTT COUNTY
LEOTI
HEALY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LANSING
ARKANSAS CITY
DEXTER
CHAPMAN
HAVILAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JUNCTION CITY
COPELAND
INGALLS
CREST
LIBERAL
RURAL VISTA
DIGHTON
KISMET-PLAINS
FREDONIA
ELWOOD
HERINGTON
AXTELL
HAYS
EL DORADO
EUDORA
FLINTHILLS
COLUMBUS
SYRACUSE
FT LARNED
PAWNEE HEIGHTS
LAWRENCE
VALLEY HEIGHTS
County
FORD
HARVEY
WILSON
COWLEY
COWLEY
LEAVENWORTH
COWLEY
SCOTT
WICHITA
LANE
LEAVENWORTH
COWLEY
COWLEY
DICKINSON
KIOWA
GEARY
GRAY
GRAY
ANDERSON
SEWARD
DICKINSON
LANE
SEWARD
WILSON
DONIPHAN
DICKINSON
MARSHALL
ELLIS
BUTLER
DOUGLAS
BUTLER
CHEROKEE
HAMILTON
PAWNEE
PAWNEE
DOUGLAS
MARSHALL
9-20-89
FTE
9-20-93
FTE
9-20-98
FTE
296
720
726
388
357.2
1,312.80
2,360.10
1,059.20
581
110.5
1,594.50
3,095.10
155.5
1,211.00
159
6,731.80
124
225.5
279.5
3,400.60
362.5
387.7
567.5
881
254
577.5
328.5
3,375.90
2,040.70
810.4
230
1,265.50
400.5
1,106.60
152.5
8,034.30
425
384
354
790.5
840.5
759.8
758
366.2
405.2
430.4
320
1,517.50 1,466.70
2,566.20 2,642.20
1,072.60 1,121.20
607.5
477.5
117
103.5
1,916.10 1,913.00
3,043.10 2,857.50
181.8
200.5
1,312.50 1,227.00
187.9
179.3
6,759.50 6,076.80
112
121.5
276
293.5
314
311
3,803.80 4,050.20
395
452.5
405.3
345.4
613.5
693.1
927
882.1
193.5
312.5
561
571.3
365.5
374
3,454.60 3,422.70
2,305.90 2,178.50
883.5 1,100.10
255.5
339
1,370.50 1,375.70
398.5
509
1,175.70 1,073.30
168.5
159
8,919.10 10,016.00
464.8
513.5
% Change % Change
Projected
over 10over 5# of High Enrollment Enrollment
years
years
Schools
per HS
2004-05
20%
17%
4%
4%
-10%
12%
12%
6%
-18%
-6%
20%
-8%
29%
1%
13%
-10%
-2%
30%
11%
19%
25%
-11%
22%
0%
23%
-1%
14%
1%
7%
36%
47%
9%
27%
-3%
4%
25%
21%
-10%
3%
-6%
11%
-22%
-4%
1%
1%
-19%
2%
-1%
-8%
7%
-8%
-4%
-10%
8%
10%
1%
2%
12%
-14%
10%
-4%
50%
-3%
1%
0%
-4%
18%
23%
0%
21%
-11%
-9%
9%
9%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
354
841
758
405
320
1,467
2,642
1,121
478
104
1,913
2,858
201
1,227
179
6,077
122
294
311
4,050
226
345
693
882
313
571
187
3,423
2,179
1,100
339
1,376
509
1,073
159
5,008
514
250.0
780.0
869.0
417.0
335.0
1,460.0
2,197.8
967.5
446.0
100.0
1,859.0
2,940.4
215.0
1,070.0
175.0
6,450.0
120.0
266.0
276.0
4,260.0
410.0
NA
735.0
792.0
365.0
555.0
283.0
3,008.0
2,120.0
1,358.0
347.0
1,300.0
526.0
937.0
160.0
10,750.0
420.0
District #
D0499
D0500
D0501
D0502
D0503
D0504
D0505
D0506
D0507
D0508
D0509
D0511
D0512
District
GALENA
KANSAS CITY
TOPEKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LEWIS
PARSONS
OSWEGO
CHETOPA
LABETTE COUNTY
SATANTA
BAXTER SPRINGS
SOUTH HAVEN
ATTICA
SHAWNEE MISSION PUBLIC SCHOO
County
CHEROKEE
WYANDOTTE
SHAWNEE
EDWARDS
LABETTE
LABETTE
LABETTE
LABETTE
HASKELL
CHEROKEE
SUMNER
HARPER
JOHNSON
9-20-89
FTE
9-20-93
FTE
9-20-98
FTE
730.1
752.6
794.7
21,520.60 21,001.50 19,876.50
14,095.20 13,955.10 13,478.40
176.5
191
191
1,915.60 1,936.00 1,708.90
459
467.5
497.5
313.2
285
270.5
1,625.10 1,663.60 1,780.80
356.1
371.5
438
884.8
908.3
884.1
233
237.5
264.5
217.5
182
163
28,885.30 30,537.10 30,293.70
% Change % Change
Projected
over 10over 5# of High Enrollment Enrollment
years
years
Schools
per HS
2004-05
9%
-8%
-4%
8%
-11%
8%
-14%
10%
23%
0%
14%
-25%
5%
6%
-4%
-1%
7%
-9%
0%
1%
2%
21%
-4%
10%
-23%
-1%
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
795
4,969
4,493
191
1,709
498
271
1,781
438
884
265
163
6,059
782.0
20,200.0
13,129.6
183.0
1,485.0
500.0
261.0
1,700.0
440.0
860.0
280.0
145.0
27,984.0
APPENDIX II
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR ALL DISTRICTS
District #
D0101
D0102
D0103
D0104
D0200
D0202
D0203
D0204
D0205
D0206
D0207
D0208
D0209
D0210
D0211
D0212
D0213
D0214
D0215
D0216
D0217
D0218
D0219
D0220
D0221
D0222
D0223
D0224
D0225
D0226
D0227
D0228
D0229
D0230
D0231
D0232
D0233
District
ERIE-ST PAUL
CIMARRON-ENSIGN
CHEYLIN
WHITE ROCK
GREELEY COUNTY
TURNER-KANSAS CITY
PIPER-KANSAS CITY
BONNER SPRINGS
LEON
REMINGTON-WHITEWATER
FT LEAVENWORTH
WAKEENEY
MOSCOW PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HUGOTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
NORTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
NORTHERN VALLEY
WEST SOLOMON VALLEY SCHOOLS
ULYSSES
LAKIN
DEERFIELD
ROLLA
ELKHART
MINNEOLA
ASHLAND
NORTH CENTRAL
WASHINGTON SCHOOLS
BARNES
REPUBLICAN VALLEY
FOWLER
MEADE
JETMORE
HANSTON
SOUTHEAST JOHNSON CO
SPRING HILL
GARDNER-EDGERTON-ANTIOCH
DESOTO
OLATHE
County
NEOSHO
GRAY
CHEYENNE
JEWELL
GREELEY
WYANDOTTE
WYANDOTTE
WYANDOTTE
BUTLER
BUTLER
LEAVENWORTH
TREGO
STEVENS
STEVENS
NORTON
NORTON
NORTON
GRANT
KEARNY
KEARNY
MORTON
MORTON
CLARK
CLARK
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
MEADE
MEADE
HODGEMAN
HODGEMAN
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
Writing
Actual Z- Predicted
Reading Math Power Composite Score 98- Z-Score
Reading
Index 98-99
98-99
98-99
99
98-99
Index 97-98
66.4
66.3
64.0
62.6
64.3
57.1
65.4
57.9
64.9
70.7
69.6
70.0
60.7
62.8
67.6
69.3
53.6
60.9
59.6
55.7
65.5
58.1
64.0
66.0
67.6
65.2
60.8
74.4
63.1
68.1
66.0
63.9
68.5
68.9
64.8
66.3
69.2
55.2
48.7
53.8
44.1
56.6
46.1
55.0
44.1
52.8
52.1
62.8
51.4
44.7
43.9
49.6
62.5
45.7
42.7
43.4
39.8
46.9
43.7
57.1
52.6
53.2
56.4
46.7
53.2
51.9
53.6
47.7
49.2
58.2
49.4
51.5
57.8
59.9
3.48
3.12
3.76
3.42
3.56
2.95
3.47
3.36
3.92
3.53
4.04
3.77
3.49
3.47
3.15
3.75
3.44
3.52
3.37
2.70
3.78
3.28
2.82
3.68
2.95
3.04
3.34
3.39
3.32
3.39
3.58
3.46
3.67
3.67
3.65
3.74
3.61
1.66
-1.39
2.32
-1.49
1.85
-4.85
1.35
-2.89
3.19
2.37
6.67
3.33
-1.46
-1.22
-0.77
5.03
-3.18
-1.61
-2.57
-7.59
1.55
-3.33
-1.99
2.15
-1.18
-0.69
-1.86
2.68
-0.51
1.30
0.76
-0.08
3.67
2.20
1.53
3.46
3.82
0.11
0.56
0.70
-0.45
1.08
-2.22
1.51
-0.04
1.36
2.46
1.25
1.09
-0.50
1.25
0.03
1.23
-0.46
-0.67
-2.62
-0.19
1.22
-0.03
0.23
-0.97
1.66
0.72
0.61
0.39
0.87
1.59
3.05
3.93
1.38
0.69
1.98
3.45
67.5
62.2
67.2
64.4
63.5
56.1
64.7
59.3
65.9
65.8
66.6
64.3
62.4
60.8
67.8
69.8
64.1
62.4
62.9
56.6
71.0
61.4
63.8
68.8
67.7
66.7
64.8
71.5
63.7
65.7
65.8
64.5
69.0
66.7
64.2
69.7
70.0
Math
Power 9798
54.2
45.5
53.8
50.0
57.2
40.8
53.0
45.5
51.6
47.6
54.9
49.3
46.7
45.0
49.7
55.0
45.7
41.7
42.5
37.9
51.7
44.5
51.6
57.4
47.3
58.6
43.3
54.1
53.1
52.5
46.0
48.2
56.5
50.8
49.9
55.3
61.4
Writing
Composite
Actual Z97-98
Score 97-98
3.25
3.13
3.78
3.37
3.68
3.11
3.46
3.39
3.89
3.29
3.71
3.46
3.34
3.27
3.56
3.44
3.65
3.31
3.53
3.77
4.32
3.36
3.24
3.53
2.95
3.21
2.90
3.11
3.18
3.32
3.49
3.69
3.56
3.61
3.41
3.87
3.46
0.77
-2.79
3.79
-0.02
2.92
-5.22
1.13
-1.93
3.74
-0.60
3.43
0.37
-1.27
-2.38
1.87
2.60
0.80
-2.36
-0.78
-1.69
7.54
-1.79
-0.65
3.33
-2.23
1.13
-3.95
0.87
-0.76
0.45
0.31
1.59
3.39
2.11
0.15
5.20
3.92
District #
D0234
D0235
D0237
D0238
D0239
D0240
D0241
D0242
D0243
D0244
D0245
D0246
D0247
D0248
D0249
D0250
D0251
D0252
D0253
D0254
D0255
D0256
D0257
D0258
D0259
D0260
D0261
D0262
D0263
D0264
D0265
D0266
D0267
D0268
D0269
D0270
D0271
D0272
D0273
D0274
D0275
D0278
District
FT SCOTT
UNIONTOWN
SMITH CENTER
WEST SMITH COUNTY
NORTH OTTAWA COUNTY
TWIN VALLEY
WALLACE COUNTY SCHOOLS
WESKAN
LEBO-WAVERLY
BURLINGTON
LEROY-GRIDLEY
NORTHEAST
CHEROKEE
GIRARD
FRONTENAC PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PITTSBURG
NORTH LYON COUNTY
SOUTHERN LYON COUNTY
EMPORIA
BARBER COUNTY NORTH
SOUTH BARBER
MARMATON VALLEY
IOLA
HUMBOLDT
WICHITA
DERBY
HAYSVILLE
VALLEY CENTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MULVANE
CLEARWATER
GODDARD
MAIZE
RENWICK
CHENEY
PALCO
PLAINVILLE
STOCKTON
WACONDA
BELOIT
OAKLEY
TRIPLAINS
MANKATO
County
BOURBON
BOURBON
SMITH
SMITH
OTTAWA
OTTAWA
WALLACE
WALLACE
COFFEY
COFFEY
COFFEY
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
LYON
LYON
LYON
BARBER
BARBER
ALLEN
ALLEN
ALLEN
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
ROOKS
ROOKS
ROOKS
MITCHELL
MITCHELL
LOGAN
LOGAN
JEWELL
Writing
Actual Z- Predicted
Reading Math Power Composite Score 98- Z-Score
Reading
Index 98-99
98-99
98-99
99
98-99
Index 97-98
65.6
67.9
68.9
67.7
67.6
67.6
69.2
62.5
63.2
68.5
64.3
60.8
61.3
66.4
61.8
65.2
62.3
62.5
63.7
67.4
66.9
64.2
65.1
62.0
59.9
65.3
62.8
66.5
64.6
66.5
67.4
67.9
70.6
60.5
69.3
60.2
66.6
69.5
62.2
66.9
69.1
60.7
49.8
49.2
55.6
53.6
47.2
46.7
52.3
41.8
48.5
51.9
47.0
52.1
45.7
54.5
53.0
52.4
49.2
45.7
47.3
49.0
55.4
49.4
50.8
52.8
46.0
53.7
45.8
48.8
51.6
62.1
51.5
52.9
56.4
49.2
54.7
42.8
54.3
56.6
46.8
49.6
42.6
43.7
3.42
3.40
4.03
3.44
3.59
3.29
3.75
3.91
3.19
3.65
3.37
3.37
3.30
3.56
3.25
3.54
3.61
3.45
3.58
3.65
3.06
3.83
3.69
3.64
3.27
3.31
3.34
3.46
3.18
3.43
3.47
3.45
3.52
3.38
3.94
3.54
3.62
3.31
3.58
3.41
3.46
3.35
0.21
0.53
5.18
1.47
1.10
-0.56
3.20
0.63
-1.77
2.45
-0.85
-0.75
-2.13
1.96
-0.98
1.20
0.33
-1.07
0.16
1.68
-0.37
1.95
1.68
1.06
-2.56
0.26
-1.56
0.45
-0.95
2.65
1.19
1.45
3.05
-1.28
4.64
-1.65
2.28
1.74
-0.27
0.42
-0.05
-2.36
-1.16
-0.45
0.87
3.08
0.07
1.28
-0.65
1.33
0.11
1.07
0.04
-1.02
-1.15
1.68
-0.33
-1.53
1.11
0.72
-1.54
-0.48
0.28
-0.03
-0.81
1.43
-2.78
0.70
-0.64
1.73
0.95
2.06
0.97
0.72
1.95
1.50
-0.15
-0.98
0.98
1.17
0.80
-0.74
1.60
-0.11
62.9
69.6
69.4
60.7
68.0
63.4
70.5
71.6
66.7
69.6
63.6
59.6
60.1
60.5
64.1
62.6
63.7
61.5
64.3
66.9
63.2
64.8
65.5
60.8
60.5
65.4
65.0
66.8
63.9
64.9
65.8
67.6
68.5
64.3
67.1
63.4
62.0
66.8
63.1
61.0
61.2
64.3
Math
Power 9798
47.8
49.8
55.3
48.5
48.7
50.3
52.3
48.3
49.5
51.4
44.3
49.2
43.6
49.4
50.5
45.4
48.9
42.7
50.3
47.5
53.6
47.9
48.0
52.3
46.3
50.8
46.3
48.3
47.3
50.5
51.3
52.6
57.6
48.5
53.3
42.9
45.1
53.5
45.3
52.8
46.0
42.6
Writing
Composite
Actual Z97-98
Score 97-98
3.31
3.41
3.53
3.45
3.38
3.16
3.79
3.48
3.27
3.25
3.46
2.90
3.38
3.49
3.43
3.22
3.49
3.71
3.66
3.66
2.89
3.55
3.58
3.50
3.34
3.34
3.41
3.38
3.60
3.51
3.17
3.34
3.48
3.71
3.79
3.68
3.59
3.23
3.53
3.23
3.50
2.84
-1.13
1.43
3.09
-0.70
0.66
-1.46
4.36
2.05
-0.16
0.76
-0.71
-4.12
-2.15
-0.34
0.36
-2.18
0.33
0.00
1.74
1.86
-2.52
0.77
1.14
0.32
-1.80
0.19
-0.31
0.31
0.75
1.03
-0.64
1.04
3.00
1.72
3.73
0.31
-0.17
0.35
-0.23
-1.16
-0.73
-4.55
District #
D0279
D0280
D0281
D0282
D0283
D0284
D0285
D0286
D0287
D0288
D0289
D0290
D0291
D0292
D0293
D0294
D0295
D0297
D0298
D0299
D0300
D0301
D0302
D0303
D0304
D0305
D0306
D0307
D0308
D0309
D0310
D0311
D0312
D0313
D0314
D0315
D0316
D0317
D0318
D0320
D0321
D0322
District
JEWELL
WEST GRAHAM-MORLAND
HILL CITY
WEST ELK
ELK VALLEY
CHASE COUNTY
CEDAR VALE
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY COMMUNITY
WEST FRANKLIN
CENTRAL HEIGHTS
WELLSVILLE
OTTAWA
GRINNELL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
GRAINFIELD
QUINTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
OBERLIN
PRAIRIE HEIGHTS
ST FRANCIS COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
LINCOLN
SYLVAN GROVE
COMMANCHE COUNTY
NES TRES LA GO
SMOKY HILL
NESS CITY
BAZINE
SALINA
SOUTHEAST OF SALINE
ELL-SALINE
HUTCHINSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
NICKERSON
FAIRFIELD
PRETTY PRAIRIE
HAVEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BUHLER
BREWSTER
COLBY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
GOLDEN PLAINS
HERNDON
ATWOOD
WAMEGO
KAW VALLEY
ONAGA-HAVENSVILLE-WHEATON
County
JEWELL
GRAHAM
GRAHAM
ELK
ELK
CHASE
CHAUTAUQUA
CHAUTAUQUA
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
GOVE
GOVE
GOVE
DECATUR
DECATUR
CHEYENNE
LINCOLN
LINCOLN
COMANCHE
NESS
NESS
NESS
NESS
SALINE
SALINE
SALINE
RENO
RENO
RENO
RENO
RENO
RENO
THOMAS
THOMAS
THOMAS
RAWLINS
RAWLINS
POTTAWATOMIE
POTTAWATOMIE
POTTAWATOMIE
Writing
Actual Z- Predicted
Reading Math Power Composite Score 98- Z-Score
Reading
Index 98-99
98-99
98-99
99
98-99
Index 97-98
59.2
75.1
63.4
66.7
64.8
66.0
67.8
62.7
68.5
64.9
64.5
63.1
72.9
67.7
70.4
70.2
63.7
69.7
70.0
72.7
67.6
61.8
65.2
66.1
68.8
66.0
67.9
60.7
63.1
66.5
64.1
69.7
69.9
70.3
72.7
67.2
74.7
66.8
71.7
62.6
63.4
67.1
47.7
46.1
45.8
52.3
43.2
49.3
45.6
49.4
54.7
49.1
52.8
48.0
49.9
49.0
54.2
52.2
48.3
53.9
53.3
61.1
50.0
41.5
45.9
53.0
45.2
50.3
59.9
50.9
51.5
51.1
49.4
54.3
56.1
55.0
56.7
51.4
57.3
45.2
58.2
49.7
53.6
54.2
3.50
3.36
3.54
3.50
3.34
3.44
3.30
3.52
3.39
3.54
3.39
3.43
3.85
3.65
4.08
3.94
3.31
3.72
3.66
3.85
3.58
3.08
3.54
3.38
3.54
3.27
3.44
3.36
3.46
3.26
3.30
3.42
3.54
3.43
3.40
3.34
3.48
3.43
3.69
3.83
3.76
3.42
-1.22
1.43
-0.38
1.32
-1.56
0.32
-0.65
-0.01
1.59
0.55
0.33
-0.63
4.15
1.75
5.54
4.40
-1.07
3.44
3.09
6.09
1.54
-3.91
0.05
0.68
0.76
-0.39
2.63
-1.04
0.14
-0.19
-0.83
1.95
2.94
2.27
2.96
0.45
3.95
-0.28
4.51
1.64
2.15
1.34
0.97
2.78
0.72
-0.84
-3.17
1.19
-2.11
-0.24
0.16
0.27
1.54
-0.36
2.65
0.09
2.22
0.85
0.95
-0.07
0.85
1.72
1.56
2.84
1.91
1.04
1.00
0.98
2.11
0.43
-1.15
-0.18
-1.01
1.06
0.93
1.15
1.37
0.72
-0.41
0.25
0.16
1.50
2.95
1.58
62.0
66.2
65.8
64.0
60.9
66.0
62.1
59.7
68.6
67.2
64.6
62.9
70.0
72.8
69.2
71.9
66.0
68.4
67.9
67.2
65.2
59.9
65.2
67.0
62.9
65.1
68.3
63.6
64.1
64.5
66.8
64.3
68.4
67.5
71.2
66.8
78.2
63.2
73.9
64.7
67.4
65.5
Math
Power 9798
49.2
45.4
47.0
53.2
41.8
50.0
37.1
43.8
52.5
45.2
51.4
44.7
51.4
61.3
50.5
50.3
42.0
47.6
49.1
45.4
50.6
45.0
49.8
46.5
41.3
48.1
60.4
53.2
49.7
53.3
50.7
50.0
55.4
54.8
53.6
49.3
66.2
50.6
57.5
46.6
47.8
52.4
Writing
Composite
Actual Z97-98
Score 97-98
3.64
3.57
3.36
3.20
2.75
3.76
3.14
3.52
3.33
3.41
3.46
3.45
3.49
3.65
3.62
3.92
3.76
3.73
3.60
3.57
3.33
3.59
3.27
3.51
3.31
3.33
3.53
3.24
3.36
3.45
3.23
3.17
3.52
3.60
3.65
3.53
3.92
3.29
3.92
3.80
3.77
3.45
0.88
0.77
-0.29
-0.55
-6.05
2.69
-4.28
-1.37
1.20
0.02
0.82
-0.86
2.29
5.71
2.71
5.11
1.24
2.65
2.03
1.01
0.04
-0.69
-0.46
0.80
-2.31
-0.44
3.75
-0.41
-0.20
1.08
-0.16
-1.24
2.81
2.97
3.93
1.38
9.50
-0.67
6.90
2.00
2.69
1.16
District #
D0323
D0324
D0325
D0326
D0327
D0328
D0329
D0330
D0331
D0332
D0333
D0334
D0335
D0336
D0337
D0338
D0339
D0340
D0341
D0342
D0343
D0344
D0345
D0346
D0347
D0348
D0349
D0350
D0351
D0352
D0353
D0354
D0355
D0356
D0357
D0358
D0359
D0360
D0361
D0362
D0363
D0364
District
WESTMORELAND
EASTERN HEIGHTS
PHILLIPSBURG
LOGAN
ELLSWORTH
LORRAINE
ALMA
WABAUNSEE EAST
KINGMAN
CUNNINGHAM
CONCORDIA
SOUTHERN CLOUD
NORTH JACKSON
HOLTON
MAYETTA
VALLEY FALLS
JEFFERSON COUNTY NORTH
JEFFERSON WEST
OSKALOOSA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MCLOUTH
PERRY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PLEASANTON
SEAMAN
JAYHAWK
KINSLEY-OFFERLE
BALDWIN CITY
STAFFORD
ST JOHN-HUDSON
MACKSVILLE
GOODLAND
WELLINGTON
CLAFLIN
ELLINWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CONWAY SPRINGS
BELLE PLAINE
OXFORD
ARGONIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CALDWELL
ANTHONY-HARPER
PRAIRIE VIEW
HOLCOMB
MARYSVILLE
County
POTTAWATOMIE
PHILLIPS
PHILLIPS
PHILLIPS
ELLSWORTH
ELLSWORTH
WABAUNSEE
WABAUNSEE
KINGMAN
KINGMAN
CLOUD
CLOUD
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
LINN
SHAWNEE
LINN
EDWARDS
DOUGLAS
STAFFORD
STAFFORD
STAFFORD
SHERMAN
SUMNER
BARTON
BARTON
SUMNER
SUMNER
SUMNER
SUMNER
SUMNER
HARPER
LINN
FINNEY
MARSHALL
Writing
Actual Z- Predicted
Reading Math Power Composite Score 98- Z-Score
Reading
Index 98-99
98-99
98-99
99
98-99
Index 97-98
66.8
64.2
71.9
66.9
71.4
68.2
68.2
66.7
64.3
70.0
68.5
60.1
61.0
63.3
64.3
62.8
65.6
61.2
63.4
60.9
66.4
56.1
64.1
65.5
59.8
65.2
61.5
69.7
62.5
62.2
59.5
68.6
64.5
67.2
65.4
63.0
66.5
62.6
64.2
65.4
61.0
63.1
58.4
48.6
57.7
45.1
52.3
53.7
55.9
53.9
53.9
56.3
57.8
40.1
47.1
52.2
53.4
44.7
54.6
48.1
51.4
50.0
50.8
52.4
49.1
46.0
46.5
45.9
50.8
47.0
50.3
47.2
48.6
53.2
51.3
47.0
45.6
42.3
44.1
45.7
46.4
55.8
52.6
47.3
3.10
3.42
3.29
3.63
3.69
3.93
3.47
3.53
3.43
3.39
3.38
3.01
3.40
3.60
3.13
3.48
3.85
3.31
3.26
3.49
3.39
3.13
3.26
3.46
3.49
3.28
3.43
3.31
3.39
3.27
3.24
3.29
3.54
3.44
3.05
3.21
3.39
3.17
3.20
3.72
3.60
3.41
0.34
-0.32
2.38
0.77
3.40
4.16
2.15
1.76
0.69
2.22
2.09
-4.91
-1.43
1.04
-0.96
-1.03
3.30
-1.68
-0.85
-0.47
0.42
-3.03
-1.09
-0.28
-1.35
-1.30
-0.50
0.08
-0.57
-1.82
-2.35
0.83
0.85
0.19
-2.51
-2.81
-0.75
-2.51
-1.86
2.79
0.59
-0.86
1.27
-1.22
1.43
0.32
0.95
0.23
0.90
0.28
0.97
-0.56
-0.23
0.07
2.09
2.03
-0.51
0.69
1.11
1.56
0.55
1.57
0.96
-0.11
1.28
-0.31
0.09
1.45
-1.86
-0.61
-1.46
-0.63
-0.79
1.89
0.45
1.17
1.53
1.77
-0.45
0.42
-0.10
1.03
0.30
2.27
65.2
57.4
70.2
68.2
67.7
70.4
67.1
63.6
66.4
68.5
67.2
61.4
61.1
65.7
63.3
69.8
66.4
63.5
68.5
60.9
70.0
59.7
63.9
68.7
63.5
60.5
62.6
67.9
64.8
62.8
60.2
67.1
70.5
62.7
60.0
61.2
67.6
61.6
64.3
61.4
62.8
65.6
Math
Power 9798
53.8
49.2
57.7
54.7
50.8
57.4
53.4
47.9
50.1
53.3
53.9
42.3
46.8
47.9
47.0
50.3
57.3
51.7
49.6
45.3
52.9
45.9
49.5
47.4
50.3
45.4
52.2
50.0
46.4
45.5
41.8
55.3
53.4
43.5
44.8
47.4
50.8
43.1
48.2
47.2
45.5
46.5
Writing
Composite
Actual Z97-98
Score 97-98
3.38
3.08
3.72
3.55
3.66
3.80
3.83
3.35
3.35
3.57
3.46
3.21
3.90
3.53
2.96
3.51
3.39
3.52
3.28
3.47
3.38
3.00
3.21
3.50
3.67
3.14
3.05
3.42
3.38
3.14
3.26
3.05
3.30
3.32
3.35
3.24
3.43
2.88
3.13
3.43
3.39
3.33
0.92
-3.57
4.85
2.82
2.65
5.32
3.99
-0.71
0.36
2.75
1.89
-3.09
1.78
0.87
-3.28
2.16
1.90
0.97
0.35
-1.11
1.90
-4.10
-1.19
1.31
1.61
-3.16
-1.96
1.12
-0.52
-2.59
-3.17
-0.32
1.64
-1.90
-2.13
-2.03
1.25
-4.87
-1.80
-0.88
-1.10
-0.61
District #
D0365
D0366
D0367
D0368
D0369
D0371
D0372
D0373
D0374
D0375
D0376
D0377
D0378
D0379
D0380
D0381
D0382
D0383
D0384
D0385
D0386
D0387
D0388
D0389
D0390
D0392
D0393
D0394
D0395
D0396
D0397
D0398
D0399
D0400
D0401
D0402
D0403
D0404
D0405
D0406
D0407
D0408
District
GARNETT
WOODSON
OSAWATOMIE
PAOLA
BURRTON
MONTEZUMA
SILVER LAKE
NEWTON
SUBLETTE
CIRCLE
STERLING
ATCHISON CO COMM SCHOOLS
RILEY COUNTY
CLAY CENTER
VERMILLION
SPEARVILLE-WINDTHORST
PRATT
MANHATTAN
BLUE VALLEY
ANDOVER
MADISON-VIRGIL
ALTOONA-MIDWAY
ELLIS
EUREKA
HAMILTON
OSBORNE COUNTY
SOLOMON
ROSE HILL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LACROSSE
DOUGLASS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CENTRE
PEABODY-BURNS
PARADISE
LINDSBORG
CHASE
AUGUSTA
OTIS-BISON
RIVERTON
LYONS
WATHENA
RUSSELL COUNTY
MARION
County
ANDERSON
WOODSON
MIAMI
MIAMI
HARVEY
GRAY
SHAWNEE
HARVEY
HASKELL
BUTLER
RICE
ATCHISON
RILEY
CLAY
MARSHALL
FORD
PRATT
RILEY
RILEY
BUTLER
GREENWOOD
WILSON
ELLIS
GREENWOOD
GREENWOOD
OSBORNE
DICKINSON
BUTLER
RUSH
BUTLER
MARION
MARION
RUSSELL
MCPHERSON
RICE
BUTLER
RUSH
CHEROKEE
RICE
DONIPHAN
RUSSELL
MARION
Writing
Actual Z- Predicted
Reading Math Power Composite Score 98- Z-Score
Reading
Index 98-99
98-99
98-99
99
98-99
Index 97-98
65.3
68.2
58.8
64.7
69.3
61.2
71.3
61.7
67.4
67.5
69.2
63.4
68.8
66.0
70.5
65.6
65.1
66.1
68.3
69.1
60.2
67.4
68.9
61.8
71.1
68.7
66.8
62.9
68.1
68.3
63.9
62.0
67.1
65.4
59.6
63.2
68.5
61.5
65.1
65.7
66.7
66.9
57.2
48.9
48.0
47.1
48.5
42.1
54.7
50.1
49.0
55.2
46.9
53.5
60.1
56.9
56.1
44.7
51.2
51.7
50.9
53.3
45.1
49.2
52.4
50.9
50.1
51.1
43.4
51.8
51.3
55.8
55.3
48.9
50.8
49.9
41.0
47.0
52.6
48.4
58.2
45.3
49.6
52.2
3.22
3.72
3.63
3.78
3.20
3.36
3.44
3.54
3.39
3.31
3.56
3.86
3.10
3.58
3.44
3.05
3.45
3.43
3.87
3.30
3.26
3.35
3.52
3.65
3.60
3.39
3.38
3.24
3.47
3.20
3.39
3.35
3.58
3.30
3.08
3.30
3.49
3.36
3.61
3.26
3.40
3.20
0.41
2.21
-0.58
1.40
-0.31
-2.48
2.50
-0.01
0.33
1.03
1.25
2.65
1.11
2.39
2.56
-2.62
0.50
0.71
3.37
1.01
-2.70
0.15
1.95
0.73
2.47
1.00
-0.86
-1.00
1.31
0.75
0.64
-1.14
1.57
-0.44
-4.50
-1.46
1.74
-1.29
2.57
-1.40
0.32
-0.21
0.14
-1.23
-2.11
0.45
1.22
-0.73
1.93
-0.37
-1.22
1.42
0.07
0.70
1.45
0.10
0.53
1.33
0.30
0.93
0.55
1.65
-0.43
-0.06
0.84
-0.27
-0.26
-0.07
-0.15
1.07
-0.55
1.96
-0.24
0.26
-0.29
1.88
-1.22
0.75
-2.16
-1.23
-0.43
0.59
-0.34
0.83
64.1
64.2
61.6
66.7
68.1
63.8
68.0
61.7
64.1
65.8
64.2
63.7
65.7
69.3
70.0
68.4
67.1
65.6
69.1
68.4
68.0
68.8
69.3
67.9
70.9
65.7
65.7
64.5
62.2
58.1
60.7
64.3
71.7
64.7
59.9
65.0
67.9
64.5
65.0
66.6
65.3
66.7
Math
Power 9798
54.4
49.9
49.7
48.5
50.6
45.5
57.4
45.1
48.5
51.4
50.6
50.4
49.2
57.0
57.0
52.2
49.3
49.4
51.0
53.2
46.0
55.5
54.8
47.1
49.8
47.5
44.3
51.5
45.0
45.7
49.5
46.4
48.5
49.9
44.8
48.1
51.2
45.7
57.9
45.2
51.9
48.2
Writing
Composite
Actual Z97-98
Score 97-98
3.23
3.93
3.48
3.65
3.22
3.57
3.24
3.33
3.49
3.31
3.44
3.68
3.16
3.48
3.31
3.07
3.47
3.44
3.60
3.34
3.32
3.31
3.61
3.52
3.44
3.23
3.16
3.32
3.39
3.15
3.46
3.16
3.65
3.40
3.23
3.30
3.18
3.13
3.53
3.12
3.31
3.30
-0.13
3.26
-0.08
1.93
0.08
0.22
1.41
-1.79
0.35
0.21
0.46
1.74
-1.11
3.08
2.23
-0.46
1.10
0.58
2.66
1.34
-0.18
1.67
3.46
1.19
1.91
-1.00
-2.00
-0.02
-1.33
-3.62
-0.46
-1.95
3.12
0.21
-2.87
-0.64
-0.10
-2.21
2.51
-1.86
0.18
-0.21
District #
D0409
D0410
D0411
D0412
D0413
D0415
D0416
D0417
D0418
D0419
D0420
D0421
D0422
D0423
D0424
D0425
D0426
D0427
D0428
D0429
D0430
D0431
D0432
D0433
D0434
D0435
D0436
D0437
D0438
D0439
D0440
D0441
D0442
D0443
D0444
D0445
D0446
D0447
D0448
D0449
D0450
D0451
District
ATCHISON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DURHAM-HILLSBORO-LEHIGH
GOESSEL
HOXIE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
CHANUTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HIAWATHA
LOUISBURG
MORRIS COUNTY
MCPHERSON
CANTON-GALVA
OSAGE CITY
LYNDON
GREENSBURG
MOUNDRIDGE
MULLINVILLE
HIGHLAND
PIKE VALLEY
BELLEVILLE
GREAT BEND
TROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BROWN COUNTY
HOISINGTON
VICTORIA
MIDWAY SCHOOLS
SANTA FE TRAIL
ABILENE
CANEY VALLEY
AUBURN WASHBURN
SKYLINE SCHOOLS
SEDGWICK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HALSTEAD
SABETHA
NEMAHA VALLEY SCHOOLS
DODGE CITY
LITTLE RIVER
COFFEYVILLE
INDEPENDENCE
CHERRYVALE
INMAN
EASTON
SHAWNEE HEIGHTS
B&B
County
ATCHISON
MARION
MARION
SHERIDAN
NEOSHO
BROWN
MIAMI
MORRIS
MCPHERSON
MCPHERSON
OSAGE
OSAGE
KIOWA
MCPHERSON
KIOWA
DONIPHAN
REPUBLIC
REPUBLIC
BARTON
DONIPHAN
BROWN
BARTON
ELLIS
DONIPHAN
OSAGE
DICKINSON
MONTGOMERY
SHAWNEE
PRATT
HARVEY
HARVEY
NEMAHA
NEMAHA
FORD
RICE
MONTGOMERY
MONTGOMERY
MONTGOMERY
MCPHERSON
LEAVENWORTH
SHAWNEE
NEMAHA
Writing
Actual Z- Predicted
Reading Math Power Composite Score 98- Z-Score
Reading
Index 98-99
98-99
98-99
99
98-99
Index 97-98
63.0
69.2
71.1
69.9
63.7
68.1
63.7
67.2
66.7
63.1
60.4
63.9
67.1
70.5
62.4
66.0
62.6
70.0
65.2
67.1
63.8
64.4
69.3
66.2
65.5
62.7
64.1
67.6
62.8
64.9
63.4
66.7
64.4
60.8
72.4
61.5
63.0
62.9
66.1
65.7
67.7
76.3
45.3
61.3
63.3
53.1
46.9
48.9
47.7
49.0
58.3
51.3
50.7
50.0
57.3
58.0
55.8
51.3
51.9
55.7
48.8
47.2
44.8
50.9
51.6
52.4
54.8
48.6
45.2
56.7
47.2
53.7
48.7
54.8
55.6
45.5
55.9
44.3
49.3
41.2
59.6
53.2
52.8
58.8
3.22
3.79
3.81
3.73
3.31
3.24
3.64
3.33
3.38
3.91
3.44
3.53
3.58
3.31
3.42
3.37
3.06
3.27
3.62
3.63
3.42
3.63
3.77
3.26
3.32
3.52
3.56
3.29
3.89
3.44
3.27
3.45
3.45
3.26
3.70
3.33
3.21
3.14
3.46
3.53
3.31
3.75
-2.23
5.01
5.90
3.40
-1.31
-0.31
0.55
-0.03
1.76
2.45
-0.72
0.43
2.72
2.22
0.54
0.31
-1.98
1.49
0.98
1.19
-1.09
1.22
3.21
-0.02
0.55
-0.15
-0.22
1.22
1.55
0.84
-1.27
1.51
1.12
-2.49
4.32
-2.18
-1.57
-3.40
2.27
1.41
0.65
5.99
-2.04
1.94
3.49
1.12
-0.85
0.58
1.51
-0.16
1.65
1.50
0.73
1.10
0.24
3.51
0.28
-0.11
0.65
0.61
-1.42
1.06
-1.03
-0.35
1.84
-0.99
0.62
0.39
0.14
1.50
0.17
0.68
0.19
1.57
0.76
-1.71
1.30
-1.61
-0.65
-1.63
1.80
1.06
1.67
-0.69
54.9
70.7
68.1
71.5
66.5
65.6
61.4
66.3
65.6
62.7
61.9
66.9
69.3
73.6
68.6
71.4
68.8
73.3
65.8
66.6
58.8
61.9
67.9
67.7
66.1
63.5
64.4
67.3
66.6
64.1
68.0
69.1
63.6
62.1
71.4
61.8
62.4
62.4
62.9
63.6
65.5
74.6
Math
Power 9798
42.0
55.8
58.3
54.5
44.8
46.5
45.0
46.3
52.5
50.6
49.9
46.5
49.3
63.6
51.1
54.1
54.8
50.0
47.6
45.1
44.6
44.3
55.9
49.8
51.4
49.0
48.8
52.3
50.4
56.4
46.0
52.1
58.1
45.9
56.9
43.0
47.3
42.6
51.9
46.6
50.0
53.6
Writing
Composite
Actual Z97-98
Score 97-98
3.17
3.70
3.63
3.65
3.52
3.21
3.36
3.14
3.36
3.87
3.27
3.35
3.54
3.24
3.94
3.47
3.19
2.97
3.51
3.60
3.29
3.33
3.64
3.51
3.50
3.18
3.48
3.34
3.47
3.28
3.12
3.63
3.48
3.38
3.77
3.08
3.26
3.59
3.25
3.55
3.39
3.52
-4.93
4.51
3.92
4.17
0.44
-1.32
-1.70
-1.61
0.66
2.67
-1.23
-0.18
2.04
3.87
4.59
2.99
0.83
-0.28
0.72
0.99
-2.81
-1.89
3.50
1.57
1.42
-1.55
0.42
0.91
1.18
0.53
-1.38
3.04
1.92
-1.25
5.29
-3.64
-1.64
-0.52
-0.75
0.25
0.36
3.97
District #
D0452
D0453
D0454
D0455
D0456
D0457
D0458
D0459
D0460
D0461
D0462
D0463
D0464
D0465
D0466
D0467
D0468
D0469
D0470
D0471
D0473
D0474
D0475
D0476
D0477
D0479
D0480
D0481
D0482
D0483
D0484
D0486
D0487
D0488
D0489
D0490
D0491
D0492
D0493
D0494
D0495
D0496
District
STANTON COUNTY
LEAVENWORTH
BURLINGAME PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HILLCREST RURAL SCHOOLS
MARAIS DES CYGNES VALLEY
GARDEN CITY
BASEHOR-LINWOOD
BUCKLIN
HESSTON
NEODESHA
CENTRAL
UDALL
TONGANOXIE
WINFIELD
SCOTT COUNTY
LEOTI
HEALY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LANSING
ARKANSAS CITY
DEXTER
CHAPMAN
HAVILAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JUNCTION CITY
COPELAND
INGALLS
CREST
LIBERAL
RURAL VISTA
DIGHTON
KISMET-PLAINS
FREDONIA
ELWOOD
HERINGTON
AXTELL
HAYS
EL DORADO
EUDORA
FLINTHILLS
COLUMBUS
SYRACUSE
FT LARNED
PAWNEE HEIGHTS
County
STANTON
LEAVENWORTH
OSAGE
REPUBLIC
OSAGE
FINNEY
LEAVENWORTH
FORD
HARVEY
WILSON
COWLEY
COWLEY
LEAVENWORTH
COWLEY
SCOTT
WICHITA
LANE
LEAVENWORTH
COWLEY
COWLEY
DICKINSON
KIOWA
GEARY
GRAY
GRAY
ANDERSON
SEWARD
DICKINSON
LANE
SEWARD
WILSON
DONIPHAN
DICKINSON
MARSHALL
ELLIS
BUTLER
DOUGLAS
BUTLER
CHEROKEE
HAMILTON
PAWNEE
PAWNEE
Writing
Actual Z- Predicted
Reading Math Power Composite Score 98- Z-Score
Reading
Index 98-99
98-99
98-99
99
98-99
Index 97-98
60.8
61.2
67.1
56.4
65.6
61.1
65.3
65.9
68.7
57.8
62.1
61.2
68.8
62.8
67.9
69.1
69.1
69.6
61.4
69.4
68.1
70.4
64.2
63.1
62.1
65.0
55.7
62.6
75.8
64.5
62.8
56.5
65.8
65.9
65.0
64.2
67.8
61.6
64.1
59.9
60.4
67.4
48.4
46.8
50.7
46.6
43.3
42.2
53.3
47.8
56.7
42.6
48.3
48.6
56.8
45.8
54.9
50.4
50.5
48.7
44.2
54.2
56.1
49.7
54.0
55.4
48.1
54.4
54.4
47.2
57.4
46.3
43.1
44.0
48.7
46.9
51.4
48.6
51.6
48.2
54.6
43.9
43.7
56.0
3.49
3.38
3.26
3.03
3.63
3.28
3.54
3.64
3.67
3.20
3.46
3.32
3.69
3.58
3.58
3.61
3.51
3.63
3.35
3.67
3.26
3.31
3.41
3.33
3.28
3.41
3.37
3.18
3.05
3.40
3.39
3.12
3.39
3.54
3.52
3.26
3.58
3.34
3.40
3.22
3.21
3.53
-0.78
-1.54
-0.12
-4.51
0.15
-2.90
1.39
1.07
3.45
-4.01
-0.65
-1.54
3.60
-0.31
2.48
2.11
1.61
2.03
-2.11
3.17
1.07
0.72
0.58
0.16
-1.63
0.84
-1.52
-2.19
1.98
-0.77
-1.78
-4.48
-0.10
0.39
0.88
-1.16
1.87
-1.41
0.61
-3.19
-3.16
2.30
-0.54
-0.73
-1.82
-0.05
-1.42
-1.44
1.21
-0.45
-0.22
-0.16
0.52
0.88
1.54
0.49
0.82
-0.14
2.12
1.40
-1.95
0.47
0.26
0.27
-1.74
1.04
0.36
-1.29
-2.16
0.45
0.46
-0.35
-0.86
-1.44
0.37
2.41
1.82
-0.99
-0.22
1.24
-1.37
-1.17
-0.48
2.75
72.8
60.5
60.7
64.3
59.5
60.4
62.0
62.6
66.1
57.7
63.1
59.7
68.8
62.6
64.5
68.2
68.1
66.9
62.0
67.4
70.1
60.7
63.7
65.7
65.0
64.6
58.5
64.3
72.3
66.8
65.4
60.2
67.3
68.0
65.5
63.5
64.5
64.9
61.3
58.4
63.2
69.0
Math
Power 9798
50.9
46.1
42.6
50.9
42.6
44.4
47.3
46.7
54.1
43.3
45.5
54.0
57.1
45.9
51.1
50.4
53.3
46.2
42.9
54.7
53.0
48.5
51.7
53.6
46.3
44.9
48.0
46.7
53.7
44.3
43.9
39.9
52.6
49.7
53.8
50.2
49.8
43.1
47.1
46.1
45.6
56.4
Writing
Composite
Actual Z97-98
Score 97-98
3.58
3.25
2.96
3.41
3.43
3.22
3.43
3.55
3.50
3.44
3.24
3.61
3.64
3.49
3.60
3.55
3.26
3.31
3.31
3.49
3.38
3.38
3.27
3.44
3.31
3.35
3.21
3.32
3.44
3.22
3.47
3.16
3.52
3.05
3.46
3.32
3.62
3.21
3.27
3.24
3.31
3.33
3.40
-2.37
-4.69
0.36
-2.17
-2.89
-0.72
0.03
1.91
-2.42
-1.92
1.02
3.93
-0.48
1.58
2.04
0.81
-0.47
-2.24
2.27
1.95
-1.11
-0.48
1.36
-0.91
-1.02
-2.75
-0.94
2.96
-1.38
-0.29
-4.11
2.04
-1.13
1.47
-0.50
1.46
-2.11
-1.88
-2.94
-1.46
2.00
District #
D0497
D0498
D0499
D0500
D0501
D0502
D0503
D0504
D0505
D0506
D0507
D0508
D0509
D0511
D0512
District
LAWRENCE
VALLEY HEIGHTS
GALENA
KANSAS CITY
TOPEKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LEWIS
PARSONS
OSWEGO
CHETOPA
LABETTE COUNTY
SATANTA
BAXTER SPRINGS
SOUTH HAVEN
ATTICA
SHAWNEE MISSION PUBLIC SCHOO
County
DOUGLAS
MARSHALL
CHEROKEE
WYANDOTTE
SHAWNEE
EDWARDS
LABETTE
LABETTE
LABETTE
LABETTE
HASKELL
CHEROKEE
SUMNER
HARPER
JOHNSON
Writing
Actual Z- Predicted
Reading Math Power Composite Score 98- Z-Score
Reading
Index 98-99
98-99
98-99
99
98-99
Index 97-98
66.5
65.0
64.8
52.5
61.0
72.9
63.8
64.0
58.5
67.1
54.0
57.9
57.3
62.5
68.7
53.0
58.2
43.6
38.5
47.0
53.7
51.5
51.7
42.1
50.6
41.9
46.0
40.5
50.5
58.8
3.35
3.87
3.65
3.07
3.20
3.35
3.40
4.02
3.37
3.44
3.40
3.43
3.36
3.53
3.53
0.62
3.91
0.13
-6.63
-2.49
2.22
-0.01
3.31
-3.05
0.80
-3.97
-2.18
-3.66
0.19
3.09
1.18
-0.49
-3.18
-5.41
-3.06
0.08
-1.98
-1.03
-4.00
0.74
-1.68
-1.89
0.07
1.79
2.60
66.7
67.2
65.5
53.3
60.3
67.3
62.2
69.3
67.3
65.1
62.2
58.5
63.3
58.3
68.7
Math
Power 9798
51.7
49.2
44.3
38.2
45.4
44.6
45.3
51.8
45.3
50.5
47.2
46.2
48.9
49.3
58.4
Writing
Composite
Actual Z97-98
Score 97-98
3.43
3.57
3.47
3.26
3.14
3.34
3.32
3.84
3.29
3.48
3.19
3.34
3.32
3.75
3.57
1.20
1.70
-0.19
-5.47
-3.21
-0.49
-1.70
4.29
-0.66
0.90
-2.13
-2.30
-0.78
0.67
3.73
APPENDIX III
1998-99 SPENDING DATA FOR ALL DISTRICTS
District #
D0101
D0102
D0103
D0104
D0200
D0202
D0203
D0204
D0205
D0206
D0207
D0208
D0209
D0210
D0211
D0212
D0213
D0214
D0215
D0216
D0217
D0218
D0219
D0220
D0221
D0222
D0223
D0224
D0225
D0226
D0227
D0228
D0229
D0230
District
ERIE-ST PAUL
CIMARRON-ENSIGN
CHEYLIN
WHITE ROCK
GREELEY COUNTY
TURNER-KANSAS CITY
PIPER-KANSAS CITY
BONNER SPRINGS
LEON
REMINGTON-WHITEWATER
FT LEAVENWORTH
WAKEENEY
MOSCOW PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HUGOTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
NORTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
NORTHERN VALLEY
WEST SOLOMON VALLEY SCHOOLS
ULYSSES
LAKIN
DEERFIELD
ROLLA
ELKHART
MINNEOLA
ASHLAND
NORTH CENTRAL
WASHINGTON SCHOOLS
BARNES
REPUBLICAN VALLEY
FOWLER
MEADE
JETMORE
HANSTON
SOUTHEAST JOHNSON CO
SPRING HILL
County
NEOSHO
GRAY
CHEYENNE
JEWELL
GREELEY
WYANDOTTE
WYANDOTTE
WYANDOTTE
BUTLER
BUTLER
LEAVENWORTH
TREGO
STEVENS
STEVENS
NORTON
NORTON
NORTON
GRANT
KEARNY
KEARNY
MORTON
MORTON
CLARK
CLARK
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
MEADE
MEADE
HODGEMAN
HODGEMAN
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
Instuctional
General
School
Total
Spending Administration Administration Plant M&O Spending
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil per Pupil
$3,442
$3,059
$4,678
$4,879
$4,056
$3,091
$3,146
$3,307
$3,602
$4,281
$2,923
$3,831
$5,665
$3,417
$3,661
$4,458
$5,640
$3,334
$3,520
$3,968
$5,681
$4,639
$3,665
$4,233
$4,628
$4,346
$4,258
$4,165
$4,956
$3,714
$4,275
$5,304
$3,371
$3,340
$371
$256
$839
$404
$465
$263
$224
$116
$327
$308
$217
$363
$969
$236
$272
$741
$1,377
$273
$319
$452
$719
$469
$581
$703
$827
$470
$476
$370
$1,075
$452
$231
$663
$102
$417
$361
$409
$524
$402
$381
$454
$446
$495
$510
$446
$265
$342
$893
$392
$428
$601
$356
$434
$416
$493
$647
$509
$565
$588
$550
$399
$375
$490
$895
$424
$373
$745
$395
$488
$675
$817
$1,208
$1,178
$897
$826
$688
$747
$627
$722
$469
$922
$1,120
$820
$640
$1,105
$1,342
$618
$768
$863
$1,387
$917
$875
$815
$917
$838
$714
$895
$1,101
$914
$710
$981
$656
$728
$4,849
$4,541
$7,249
$6,864
$5,800
$4,634
$4,504
$4,665
$5,065
$5,757
$3,874
$5,458
$8,647
$4,866
$5,002
$6,906
$8,714
$4,659
$5,023
$5,777
$8,434
$6,534
$5,687
$6,338
$6,921
$6,053
$5,823
$5,920
$8,027
$5,505
$5,588
$7,693
$4,524
$4,974
Predicted
Spending
per Pupil
$5,353
$4,623
$6,147
$6,610
$5,453
$4,506
$5,079
$4,363
$5,155
$5,504
$4,891
$7,565
$5,695
$4,865
$6,578
$7,055
$4,851
$5,490
$5,908
$7,403
$5,610
$5,683
$6,327
$6,430
$5,364
$6,258
$5,951
$6,656
$5,494
$5,326
$6,705
$4,424
$5,090
District #
D0231
D0232
D0233
D0234
D0235
D0237
D0238
D0239
D0240
D0241
D0242
D0243
D0244
D0245
D0246
D0247
D0248
D0249
D0250
D0251
D0252
D0253
D0254
D0255
D0256
D0257
D0258
D0259
D0260
D0261
D0262
D0263
D0264
D0265
D0266
D0267
D0268
D0269
District
GARDNER-EDGERTON-ANTIOCH
DESOTO
OLATHE
FT SCOTT
UNIONTOWN
SMITH CENTER
WEST SMITH COUNTY
NORTH OTTAWA COUNTY
TWIN VALLEY
WALLACE COUNTY SCHOOLS
WESKAN
LEBO-WAVERLY
BURLINGTON
LEROY-GRIDLEY
NORTHEAST
CHEROKEE
GIRARD
FRONTENAC PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PITTSBURG
NORTH LYON COUNTY
SOUTHERN LYON COUNTY
EMPORIA
BARBER COUNTY NORTH
SOUTH BARBER
MARMATON VALLEY
IOLA
HUMBOLDT
WICHITA
DERBY
HAYSVILLE
VALLEY CENTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MULVANE
CLEARWATER
GODDARD
MAIZE
RENWICK
CHENEY
PALCO
County
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
BOURBON
BOURBON
SMITH
SMITH
OTTAWA
OTTAWA
WALLACE
WALLACE
COFFEY
COFFEY
COFFEY
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
CRAWFORD
LYON
LYON
LYON
BARBER
BARBER
ALLEN
ALLEN
ALLEN
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
SEDGWICK
ROOKS
Instuctional
General
School
Total
Spending Administration Administration Plant M&O Spending
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil per Pupil
$3,038
$3,287
$3,233
$2,837
$3,724
$4,004
$5,141
$3,396
$3,620
$3,750
$4,841
$3,419
$4,106
$3,726
$3,608
$3,399
$4,049
$3,120
$3,001
$3,609
$3,585
$2,754
$3,251
$3,737
$3,845
$3,114
$3,773
$2,868
$2,797
$2,776
$3,131
$2,661
$3,304
$2,767
$3,329
$3,123
$3,399
$5,178
$361
$570
$47
$172
$463
$354
$759
$288
$309
$373
$1,152
$293
$280
$365
$462
$280
$199
$286
$285
$306
$260
$189
$292
$427
$312
$151
$494
$28
$95
$107
$201
$218
$159
$232
$252
$195
$467
$943
$325
$434
$283
$269
$472
$438
$407
$444
$573
$589
$38
$561
$463
$448
$399
$457
$25
$372
$253
$515
$411
$312
$362
$520
$438
$395
$526
$369
$260
$307
$343
$370
$410
$300
$288
$420
$477
$825
$654
$668
$559
$497
$772
$1,059
$628
$933
$708
$833
$1,447
$856
$905
$528
$619
$720
$528
$728
$533
$661
$724
$649
$830
$1,025
$741
$913
$615
$492
$561
$695
$416
$511
$539
$609
$521
$565
$657
$1,100
$4,378
$4,959
$4,123
$3,775
$5,431
$5,854
$6,935
$5,061
$5,210
$5,545
$7,478
$5,129
$5,755
$5,067
$5,088
$4,856
$4,801
$4,506
$4,072
$5,091
$4,981
$3,904
$4,734
$5,709
$5,336
$4,572
$5,407
$3,757
$3,713
$3,886
$4,091
$3,760
$4,411
$3,908
$4,389
$4,302
$5,000
$8,046
Predicted
Spending
per Pupil
$4,521
$4,816
$4,103
$3,565
$4,616
$4,592
$5,847
$4,811
$5,269
$5,330
$7,199
$5,553
$6,547
$5,806
$4,511
$4,922
$4,796
$4,461
$3,743
$4,920
$5,195
$3,924
$4,715
$5,801
$5,076
$4,593
$5,144
$3,598
$3,692
$4,039
$4,121
$4,251
$4,848
$3,962
$4,072
$5,113
$5,113
$6,929
District #
D0270
D0271
D0272
D0273
D0274
D0275
D0278
D0279
D0280
D0281
D0282
D0283
D0284
D0285
D0286
D0287
D0288
D0289
D0290
D0291
D0292
D0293
D0294
D0295
D0297
D0298
D0299
D0300
D0301
D0302
D0303
D0304
D0305
D0306
D0307
D0308
D0309
D0310
District
PLAINVILLE
STOCKTON
WACONDA
BELOIT
OAKLEY
TRIPLAINS
MANKATO
JEWELL
WEST GRAHAM-MORLAND
HILL CITY
WEST ELK
ELK VALLEY
CHASE COUNTY
CEDAR VALE
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY COMMUNITY
WEST FRANKLIN
CENTRAL HEIGHTS
WELLSVILLE
OTTAWA
GRINNELL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
GRAINFIELD
QUINTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
OBERLIN
PRAIRIE HEIGHTS
ST FRANCIS COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
LINCOLN
SYLVAN GROVE
COMMANCHE COUNTY
NES TRES LA GO
SMOKY HILL
NESS CITY
BAZINE
SALINA
SOUTHEAST OF SALINE
ELL-SALINE
HUTCHINSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
NICKERSON
FAIRFIELD
County
ROOKS
ROOKS
MITCHELL
MITCHELL
LOGAN
LOGAN
JEWELL
JEWELL
GRAHAM
GRAHAM
ELK
ELK
CHASE
CHAUTAUQUA
CHAUTAUQUA
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
GOVE
GOVE
GOVE
DECATUR
DECATUR
CHEYENNE
LINCOLN
LINCOLN
COMANCHE
NESS
NESS
NESS
NESS
SALINE
SALINE
SALINE
RENO
RENO
RENO
Instuctional
General
School
Total
Spending Administration Administration Plant M&O Spending
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil per Pupil
$3,357
$3,862
$3,975
$3,688
$3,635
$5,843
$3,902
$4,710
$6,628
$4,002
$3,912
$4,494
$3,860
$4,320
$3,806
$3,593
$3,282
$3,467
$2,824
$4,724
$4,848
$4,531
$3,893
$5,138
$3,696
$3,957
$4,455
$4,711
$7,301
$5,241
$3,720
$5,040
$3,062
$3,705
$3,278
$2,842
$3,161
$3,704
$709
$339
$375
$331
$988
$1,192
$593
$454
$1,724
$417
$402
$662
$388
$1,301
$400
$304
$265
$287
$234
$681
$713
$429
$343
$1,052
$301
$432
$483
$669
$698
$509
$626
$1,129
$41
$317
$459
$58
$300
$485
$442
$438
$542
$439
$488
$266
$586
$718
$805
$428
$531
$708
$444
$277
$405
$483
$360
$359
$348
$467
$495
$479
$377
$327
$378
$467
$480
$672
$257
$571
$454
$267
$271
$306
$391
$362
$332
$594
$835
$652
$827
$611
$869
$1,184
$991
$1,289
$1,770
$869
$797
$767
$702
$1,033
$638
$914
$734
$642
$484
$1,213
$886
$796
$642
$791
$627
$683
$1,072
$998
$2,184
$1,201
$1,100
$1,168
$498
$810
$865
$811
$573
$901
$5,343
$5,292
$5,719
$5,069
$5,979
$8,485
$6,072
$7,171
$10,928
$5,717
$5,643
$6,631
$5,394
$6,930
$5,249
$5,294
$4,641
$4,754
$3,890
$7,085
$6,942
$6,235
$5,256
$7,307
$5,002
$5,540
$6,490
$7,050
$10,441
$7,521
$5,900
$7,604
$3,872
$5,139
$4,994
$4,073
$4,367
$5,684
Predicted
Spending
per Pupil
$5,441
$4,880
$5,917
$4,624
$5,652
$7,221
$6,029
$6,593
$7,640
$5,596
$5,046
$5,359
$5,292
$5,890
$4,658
$5,177
$4,289
$4,582
$4,159
$6,557
$6,168
$5,660
$4,918
$6,835
$4,804
$4,981
$5,747
$6,532
$7,797
$6,385
$5,878
$6,725
$3,852
$4,667
$5,196
$4,209
$4,746
$5,906
District #
D0311
D0312
D0313
D0314
D0315
D0316
D0317
D0318
D0320
D0321
D0322
D0323
D0324
D0325
D0326
D0327
D0328
D0329
D0330
D0331
D0332
D0333
D0334
D0335
D0336
D0337
D0338
D0339
D0340
D0341
D0342
D0343
D0344
D0345
D0346
D0347
D0348
D0349
District
PRETTY PRAIRIE
HAVEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BUHLER
BREWSTER
COLBY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
GOLDEN PLAINS
HERNDON
ATWOOD
WAMEGO
KAW VALLEY
ONAGA-HAVENSVILLE-WHEATON
WESTMORELAND
EASTERN HEIGHTS
PHILLIPSBURG
LOGAN
ELLSWORTH
LORRAINE
ALMA
WABAUNSEE EAST
KINGMAN
CUNNINGHAM
CONCORDIA
SOUTHERN CLOUD
NORTH JACKSON
HOLTON
MAYETTA
VALLEY FALLS
JEFFERSON COUNTY NORTH
JEFFERSON WEST
OSKALOOSA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MCLOUTH
PERRY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PLEASANTON
SEAMAN
JAYHAWK
KINSLEY-OFFERLE
BALDWIN CITY
STAFFORD
County
RENO
RENO
RENO
THOMAS
THOMAS
THOMAS
RAWLINS
RAWLINS
POTTAWATOMIE
POTTAWATOMIE
POTTAWATOMIE
POTTAWATOMIE
PHILLIPS
PHILLIPS
PHILLIPS
ELLSWORTH
ELLSWORTH
WABAUNSEE
WABAUNSEE
KINGMAN
KINGMAN
CLOUD
CLOUD
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
LINN
SHAWNEE
LINN
EDWARDS
DOUGLAS
STAFFORD
Instuctional
General
School
Total
Spending Administration Administration Plant M&O Spending
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil per Pupil
$3,962
$3,491
$2,944
$4,526
$3,115
$4,435
$5,574
$3,879
$3,082
$4,368
$3,985
$3,661
$4,453
$3,801
$4,761
$3,713
$3,721
$3,648
$3,322
$3,364
$3,817
$3,212
$4,351
$4,053
$3,711
$3,371
$3,334
$3,535
$3,311
$3,586
$3,497
$3,295
$3,749
$2,756
$3,786
$4,357
$3,329
$4,325
$320
$147
$290
$715
$229
$922
$581
$361
$231
$276
$478
$341
$673
$294
$493
$393
$388
$334
$319
$313
$513
$203
$397
$308
$133
$422
$552
$409
$413
$318
$404
$339
$465
$150
$274
$474
$159
$443
$502
$518
$374
$558
$294
$564
$717
$447
$334
$427
$653
$484
$543
$502
$583
$468
$665
$579
$545
$344
$623
$335
$507
$289
$321
$550
$397
$454
$473
$525
$543
$546
$458
$416
$448
$494
$491
$560
$856
$784
$619
$1,189
$665
$843
$893
$638
$561
$821
$662
$709
$915
$708
$1,095
$995
$683
$980
$884
$626
$538
$760
$986
$687
$535
$1,148
$1,036
$763
$559
$1,538
$639
$530
$746
$613
$701
$917
$863
$798
$5,640
$4,940
$4,227
$6,988
$4,302
$6,764
$7,765
$5,325
$4,208
$5,893
$5,778
$5,195
$6,583
$5,305
$6,932
$5,569
$5,457
$5,541
$5,071
$4,647
$5,491
$4,511
$6,241
$5,336
$4,700
$5,491
$5,319
$5,161
$4,755
$5,966
$5,084
$4,710
$5,418
$3,934
$5,209
$6,242
$4,843
$6,125
Predicted
Spending
per Pupil
$5,965
$5,513
$4,521
$6,410
$4,361
$6,460
$6,572
$4,934
$4,254
$5,933
$5,615
$4,619
$5,642
$5,008
$6,033
$4,961
$5,744
$5,824
$5,106
$4,551
$5,866
$4,505
$6,305
$4,941
$4,567
$4,884
$4,929
$4,865
$4,876
$4,991
$5,010
$5,131
$4,885
$4,654
$5,163
$6,292
$4,985
$5,765
District #
D0350
D0351
D0352
D0353
D0354
D0355
D0356
D0357
D0358
D0359
D0360
D0361
D0362
D0363
D0364
D0365
D0366
D0367
D0368
D0369
D0371
D0372
D0373
D0374
D0375
D0376
D0377
D0378
D0379
D0380
D0381
D0382
D0383
D0384
D0385
D0386
D0387
D0388
District
ST JOHN-HUDSON
MACKSVILLE
GOODLAND
WELLINGTON
CLAFLIN
ELLINWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CONWAY SPRINGS
BELLE PLAINE
OXFORD
ARGONIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CALDWELL
ANTHONY-HARPER
PRAIRIE VIEW
HOLCOMB
MARYSVILLE
GARNETT
WOODSON
OSAWATOMIE
PAOLA
BURRTON
MONTEZUMA
SILVER LAKE
NEWTON
SUBLETTE
CIRCLE
STERLING
ATCHISON CO COMM SCHOOLS
RILEY COUNTY
CLAY CENTER
VERMILLION
SPEARVILLE-WINDTHORST
PRATT
MANHATTAN
BLUE VALLEY
ANDOVER
MADISON-VIRGIL
ALTOONA-MIDWAY
ELLIS
County
STAFFORD
STAFFORD
SHERMAN
SUMNER
BARTON
BARTON
SUMNER
SUMNER
SUMNER
SUMNER
SUMNER
HARPER
LINN
FINNEY
MARSHALL
ANDERSON
WOODSON
MIAMI
MIAMI
HARVEY
GRAY
SHAWNEE
HARVEY
HASKELL
BUTLER
RICE
ATCHISON
RILEY
CLAY
MARSHALL
FORD
PRATT
RILEY
RILEY
BUTLER
GREENWOOD
WILSON
ELLIS
Instuctional
General
School
Total
Spending Administration Administration Plant M&O Spending
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil per Pupil
$3,594
$3,603
$3,276
$2,868
$4,133
$3,629
$3,623
$3,900
$4,063
$3,570
$3,932
$3,313
$3,903
$3,824
$3,818
$3,120
$3,278
$2,662
$2,682
$4,754
$4,472
$3,608
$2,760
$3,743
$3,260
$3,910
$3,508
$3,691
$2,846
$3,531
$3,546
$3,123
$2,893
$3,734
$2,924
$3,807
$3,806
$4,227
$302
$559
$221
$101
$473
$357
$356
$310
$387
$518
$627
$275
$491
$376
$217
$178
$185
$296
$235
$704
$613
$444
$182
$577
$172
$361
$247
$382
$215
$387
$435
$200
$75
$381
$227
$628
$488
$432
$402
$576
$443
$374
$472
$520
$620
$449
$475
$597
$577
$318
$721
$340
$414
$448
$428
$419
$326
$559
$715
$376
$392
$477
$383
$609
$368
$528
$356
$346
$436
$368
$291
$626
$327
$326
$439
$523
$901
$677
$736
$470
$889
$682
$794
$678
$697
$944
$630
$688
$895
$983
$574
$593
$1,317
$832
$758
$1,163
$837
$851
$697
$625
$548
$837
$783
$711
$548
$976
$748
$762
$599
$609
$554
$764
$636
$679
$5,198
$5,415
$4,676
$3,813
$5,967
$5,189
$5,392
$5,337
$5,622
$5,629
$5,765
$4,594
$6,010
$5,523
$5,023
$4,339
$5,208
$4,209
$4,001
$7,181
$6,637
$5,278
$4,031
$5,422
$4,362
$5,717
$4,906
$5,311
$3,964
$5,239
$5,165
$4,452
$3,857
$5,350
$4,033
$5,525
$5,368
$5,862
Predicted
Spending
per Pupil
$5,479
$5,442
$4,993
$4,535
$5,742
$5,146
$5,313
$4,604
$4,989
$5,447
$5,401
$4,247
$5,620
$5,041
$4,595
$4,920
$4,463
$4,326
$4,277
$6,380
$6,390
$4,754
$4,059
$5,613
$4,569
$5,371
$5,145
$4,823
$4,872
$5,200
$5,252
$4,344
$3,954
$5,866
$4,108
$5,483
$5,831
$5,422
District #
D0389
D0390
D0392
D0393
D0394
D0395
D0396
D0397
D0398
D0399
D0400
D0401
D0402
D0403
D0404
D0405
D0406
D0407
D0408
D0409
D0410
D0411
D0412
D0413
D0415
D0416
D0417
D0418
D0419
D0420
D0421
D0422
D0423
D0424
D0425
D0426
D0427
D0428
District
EUREKA
HAMILTON
OSBORNE COUNTY
SOLOMON
ROSE HILL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LACROSSE
DOUGLASS PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CENTRE
PEABODY-BURNS
PARADISE
LINDSBORG
CHASE
AUGUSTA
OTIS-BISON
RIVERTON
LYONS
WATHENA
RUSSELL COUNTY
MARION
ATCHISON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DURHAM-HILLSBORO-LEHIGH
GOESSEL
HOXIE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
CHANUTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HIAWATHA
LOUISBURG
MORRIS COUNTY
MCPHERSON
CANTON-GALVA
OSAGE CITY
LYNDON
GREENSBURG
MOUNDRIDGE
MULLINVILLE
HIGHLAND
PIKE VALLEY
BELLEVILLE
GREAT BEND
County
GREENWOOD
GREENWOOD
OSBORNE
DICKINSON
BUTLER
RUSH
BUTLER
MARION
MARION
RUSSELL
MCPHERSON
RICE
BUTLER
RUSH
CHEROKEE
RICE
DONIPHAN
RUSSELL
MARION
ATCHISON
MARION
MARION
SHERIDAN
NEOSHO
BROWN
MIAMI
MORRIS
MCPHERSON
MCPHERSON
OSAGE
OSAGE
KIOWA
MCPHERSON
KIOWA
DONIPHAN
REPUBLIC
REPUBLIC
BARTON
Instuctional
General
School
Total
Spending Administration Administration Plant M&O Spending
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil per Pupil
$3,643
$5,325
$3,534
$3,199
$2,594
$3,782
$3,552
$4,095
$3,556
$4,427
$3,345
$4,463
$2,620
$3,434
$3,609
$3,440
$4,056
$3,272
$3,457
$2,909
$3,972
$4,416
$3,702
$3,171
$3,385
$3,126
$3,218
$3,110
$3,694
$3,395
$3,500
$3,938
$4,559
$5,014
$3,730
$4,078
$3,959
$2,750
$312
$694
$400
$482
$168
$414
$207
$324
$401
$534
$246
$836
$156
$532
$206
$292
$289
$271
$284
$245
$279
$436
$530
$184
$299
$269
$267
$216
$486
$286
$476
$575
$414
$1,630
$469
$479
$269
$265
$395
$601
$558
$387
$276
$651
$423
$451
$510
$798
$373
$885
$336
$585
$393
$430
$484
$278
$342
$401
$547
$533
$412
$387
$395
$416
$406
$344
$694
$269
$335
$657
$458
$759
$668
$548
$557
$355
$718
$776
$893
$830
$769
$713
$747
$760
$869
$966
$543
$1,210
$391
$933
$803
$703
$1,005
$595
$585
$659
$1,000
$774
$671
$477
$575
$722
$498
$712
$715
$540
$747
$1,052
$809
$1,362
$1,143
$558
$830
$522
$5,068
$7,397
$5,385
$4,898
$3,807
$5,561
$4,930
$5,629
$5,336
$6,725
$4,507
$7,393
$3,504
$5,484
$5,011
$4,865
$5,835
$4,416
$4,668
$4,214
$5,798
$6,160
$5,314
$4,219
$4,653
$4,534
$4,389
$4,382
$5,589
$4,490
$5,059
$6,222
$6,241
$8,765
$6,011
$5,662
$5,615
$3,891
Predicted
Spending
per Pupil
$4,808
$6,270
$5,161
$4,861
$4,384
$5,845
$4,638
$5,418
$5,311
$6,375
$4,693
$6,636
$4,034
$5,824
$4,596
$5,312
$5,080
$5,224
$4,621
$3,802
$5,151
$5,690
$5,152
$4,411
$4,203
$4,653
$4,774
$4,688
$5,784
$4,187
$4,692
$5,830
$6,055
$7,318
$5,584
$5,720
$5,337
$4,049
District #
D0429
D0430
D0431
D0432
D0433
D0434
D0435
D0436
D0437
D0438
D0439
D0440
D0441
D0442
D0443
D0444
D0445
D0446
D0447
D0448
D0449
D0450
D0451
D0452
D0453
D0454
D0455
D0456
D0457
D0458
D0459
D0460
D0461
D0462
D0463
D0464
D0465
D0466
District
TROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BROWN COUNTY
HOISINGTON
VICTORIA
MIDWAY SCHOOLS
SANTA FE TRAIL
ABILENE
CANEY VALLEY
AUBURN WASHBURN
SKYLINE SCHOOLS
SEDGWICK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HALSTEAD
SABETHA
NEMAHA VALLEY SCHOOLS
DODGE CITY
LITTLE RIVER
COFFEYVILLE
INDEPENDENCE
CHERRYVALE
INMAN
EASTON
SHAWNEE HEIGHTS
B&B
STANTON COUNTY
LEAVENWORTH
BURLINGAME PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HILLCREST RURAL SCHOOLS
MARAIS DES CYGNES VALLEY
GARDEN CITY
BASEHOR-LINWOOD
BUCKLIN
HESSTON
NEODESHA
CENTRAL
UDALL
TONGANOXIE
WINFIELD
SCOTT COUNTY
County
DONIPHAN
BROWN
BARTON
ELLIS
DONIPHAN
OSAGE
DICKINSON
MONTGOMERY
SHAWNEE
PRATT
HARVEY
HARVEY
NEMAHA
NEMAHA
FORD
RICE
MONTGOMERY
MONTGOMERY
MONTGOMERY
MCPHERSON
LEAVENWORTH
SHAWNEE
NEMAHA
STANTON
LEAVENWORTH
OSAGE
REPUBLIC
OSAGE
FINNEY
LEAVENWORTH
FORD
HARVEY
WILSON
COWLEY
COWLEY
LEAVENWORTH
COWLEY
SCOTT
Instuctional
General
School
Total
Spending Administration Administration Plant M&O Spending
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil per Pupil
$3,964
$3,481
$3,533
$3,995
$3,729
$3,520
$3,057
$3,162
$2,756
$3,950
$3,221
$3,332
$3,573
$3,531
$2,889
$4,082
$3,164
$3,063
$3,375
$3,812
$3,407
$3,011
$3,791
$3,932
$3,070
$3,372
$4,920
$3,989
$2,639
$2,684
$3,484
$2,880
$3,735
$3,939
$3,898
$3,227
$3,094
$3,555
$501
$348
$240
$454
$401
$326
$140
$228
$142
$489
$397
$330
$365
$435
$271
$573
$199
$213
$443
$425
$300
$197
$341
$346
$164
$463
$835
$539
$79
$430
$498
$320
$361
$415
$698
$210
$183
$250
$472
$410
$565
$540
$503
$426
$383
$305
$314
$460
$368
$662
$428
$369
$373
$649
$319
$283
$413
$298
$710
$356
$430
$451
$390
$495
$585
$515
$345
$328
$348
$430
$557
$630
$431
$345
$359
$371
$938
$911
$749
$786
$787
$629
$502
$618
$466
$568
$929
$762
$632
$946
$575
$705
$414
$501
$714
$708
$567
$579
$1,298
$1,096
$581
$867
$817
$1,035
$579
$694
$626
$766
$565
$861
$829
$528
$527
$560
$5,875
$5,149
$5,087
$5,774
$5,419
$4,902
$4,083
$4,313
$3,677
$5,467
$4,915
$5,086
$4,997
$5,282
$4,107
$6,009
$4,096
$4,060
$4,944
$5,242
$4,983
$4,142
$5,860
$5,825
$4,206
$5,197
$7,157
$6,078
$3,642
$4,137
$4,957
$4,396
$5,220
$5,846
$5,857
$4,310
$4,162
$4,736
Predicted
Spending
per Pupil
$5,440
$4,843
$5,040
$5,607
$5,520
$4,694
$4,600
$3,910
$3,843
$5,238
$5,123
$4,917
$5,056
$4,896
$3,725
$6,288
$4,223
$3,969
$4,438
$5,076
$5,259
$4,274
$5,553
$6,153
$4,021
$5,400
$6,126
$5,903
$3,761
$4,497
$5,080
$4,919
$4,633
$5,577
$5,175
$4,185
$4,828
$4,753
District #
D0467
D0468
D0469
D0470
D0471
D0473
D0474
D0475
D0476
D0477
D0479
D0480
D0481
D0482
D0483
D0484
D0486
D0487
D0488
D0489
D0490
D0491
D0492
D0493
D0494
D0495
D0496
D0497
D0498
D0499
D0500
D0501
D0502
D0503
D0504
D0505
D0506
D0507
District
LEOTI
HEALY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LANSING
ARKANSAS CITY
DEXTER
CHAPMAN
HAVILAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JUNCTION CITY
COPELAND
INGALLS
CREST
LIBERAL
RURAL VISTA
DIGHTON
KISMET-PLAINS
FREDONIA
ELWOOD
HERINGTON
AXTELL
HAYS
EL DORADO
EUDORA
FLINTHILLS
COLUMBUS
SYRACUSE
FT LARNED
PAWNEE HEIGHTS
LAWRENCE
VALLEY HEIGHTS
GALENA
KANSAS CITY
TOPEKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LEWIS
PARSONS
OSWEGO
CHETOPA
LABETTE COUNTY
SATANTA
County
WICHITA
LANE
LEAVENWORTH
COWLEY
COWLEY
DICKINSON
KIOWA
GEARY
GRAY
GRAY
ANDERSON
SEWARD
DICKINSON
LANE
SEWARD
WILSON
DONIPHAN
DICKINSON
MARSHALL
ELLIS
BUTLER
DOUGLAS
BUTLER
CHEROKEE
HAMILTON
PAWNEE
PAWNEE
DOUGLAS
MARSHALL
CHEROKEE
WYANDOTTE
SHAWNEE
EDWARDS
LABETTE
LABETTE
LABETTE
LABETTE
HASKELL
Instuctional
General
School
Total
Spending Administration Administration Plant M&O Spending
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil per Pupil
$3,554
$5,971
$2,649
$2,781
$4,324
$3,043
$4,410
$2,503
$5,205
$3,616
$3,894
$2,650
$3,573
$3,973
$3,807
$3,489
$3,835
$3,698
$4,019
$3,502
$2,712
$2,810
$3,724
$3,154
$3,531
$3,232
$5,164
$3,012
$3,693
$3,485
$2,692
$2,744
$4,380
$2,935
$3,403
$4,304
$2,900
$3,875
$348
$1,238
$225
$126
$1,354
$226
$938
$88
$1,121
$336
$400
$126
$325
$514
$213
$286
$374
$313
$368
$233
$93
$274
$393
$220
$469
$356
$881
$73
$326
$340
$48
$49
$644
$271
$476
$886
$161
$548
$589
$269
$305
$375
$8
$448
$550
$371
$284
$424
$485
$282
$347
$555
$462
$645
$265
$467
$548
$429
$372
$387
$505
$449
$338
$428
$631
$354
$440
$633
$352
$334
$517
$362
$712
$483
$293
$425
$1,032
$1,199
$507
$640
$795
$799
$1,123
$657
$1,363
$698
$873
$511
$684
$901
$775
$647
$671
$1,336
$682
$544
$798
$1,121
$967
$623
$1,263
$1,283
$979
$563
$916
$971
$732
$494
$740
$671
$504
$580
$664
$1,012
$5,524
$8,678
$3,687
$3,922
$6,481
$4,516
$7,020
$3,619
$7,973
$5,074
$5,651
$3,569
$4,928
$5,943
$5,256
$5,066
$5,146
$5,814
$5,617
$4,708
$3,975
$4,592
$5,589
$4,447
$5,601
$5,299
$7,655
$4,002
$5,376
$5,430
$3,825
$3,621
$6,280
$4,239
$5,095
$6,253
$4,018
$5,861
Predicted
Spending
per Pupil
$5,386
$7,231
$4,307
$4,333
$5,775
$5,084
$6,527
$3,976
$7,024
$5,399
$5,604
$3,707
$5,459
$6,024
$4,753
$4,667
$5,159
$5,294
$6,264
$4,730
$4,478
$4,850
$5,811
$4,747
$5,127
$5,595
$6,328
$4,269
$5,350
$5,535
$3,798
$3,978
$5,908
$4,495
$5,520
$5,537
$4,598
$5,886
District #
D0508
D0509
D0511
D0512
District
BAXTER SPRINGS
SOUTH HAVEN
ATTICA
SHAWNEE MISSION PUBLIC SCHOO
County
CHEROKEE
SUMNER
HARPER
JOHNSON
Instuctional
General
School
Total
Spending Administration Administration Plant M&O Spending
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil
per Pupil per Pupil
$3,164
$3,595
$4,874
$3,242
$318
$635
$737
$56
$433
$289
$614
$330
$811
$965
$846
$634
$4,726
$5,485
$7,071
$4,262
Predicted
Spending
per Pupil
$4,599
$5,412
$6,058
$4,036
APPENDIX IV
ENROLLMENT, CAPACITY AND YEAR BUILT FOR SCHOOLS
Distict
Number District Name
D0101
D0101
D0101
D0101
D0101
D0101
D0101
D0102
D0102
D0103
D0103
D0104
D0104
D0104
D0200
D0200
D0202
D0202
D0202
D0202
D0202
D0202
D0202
D0202
D0202
D0202
D0203
D0203
D0203
D0203
D0204
D0204
D0204
Erie-St Paul
Erie-St Paul
Erie-St Paul
Erie-St Paul
Erie-St Paul
Erie-St Paul
Erie-St Paul
Cimarron-Ensign
Cimarron-Ensign
Cheylin
Cheylin
White Rock
White Rock
White Rock
Greeley County Schools
Greeley County Schools
Turner-Kansas City
Turner-Kansas City
Turner-Kansas City
Turner-Kansas City
Turner-Kansas City
Turner-Kansas City
Turner-Kansas City
Turner-Kansas City
Turner-Kansas City
Turner-Kansas City
Piper-Kansas City
Piper-Kansas City
Piper-Kansas City
Piper-Kansas City
Bonner Springs
Bonner Springs
Bonner Springs
Building
Number School Name
102
104
108
116
118
120
122
124
125
2780
3374
2306
2320
2322
132
134
150
152
154
156
158
160
162
164
168
170
180
188
189
190
210
214
216
Erie Elem
Erie High
Galesburg Elem
St Paul Elem
St Paul High
Thayer Elem
Thayer High
Cimarron Elem
Cimarron High
Cheylin West Jr/Sr High
Cheylin West Elem
White Rock Middle
White Rock Elem
White Rock High
Greeley County Elem School
Greeley County High School
Highland Middle School
Junction Elem
Junction Primary
Morris Elem
Muncie Elem
Oak Grove Elem
Pierson Jr High
Turner East Elem
Turner High
Career Opportunity Center
Piper Elem School East
Piper Elem School West
Piper Middle
Piper High
Bonner Springs Elementary
Bonner Springs High
Edwardsville Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
349
207
105
115
159
111
131
323
307
86
102
43
60
65
172
144
573
138
256
131
353
323
544
352
680
68
277
252
312
466
487
729
481
300
220
141
140
120
150
130
450
350
140
140
80
100
120
250
250
625
150
260
125
410
650
600
300
700
80
450
390
510
575
525
775
525
1938
1953
1954
1954
1922
1947
1947
1967
1995
1921
1921
1956
1968
1956
1956
1931
1964
1929
1955
1952
1951
1950
1964
1916
1953
1931
1994
1920
1990
1965
1956
1965
1958
Distict
Number District Name
D0204
D0205
D0205
D0205
D0205
D0206
D0206
D0206
D0207
D0207
D0207
D0207
D0208
D0208
D0209
D0209
D0210
D0210
D0210
D0211
D0211
D0211
D0212
D0212
D0212
D0213
D0213
D0214
D0214
D0214
D0214
D0214
D0215
D0215
D0215
D0216
D0216
D0216
Bonner Springs
Bluestem
Bluestem
Bluestem
Bluestem
Remington-Whitewater
Remington-Whitewater
Remington-Whitewater
Ft Leavenworth
Ft Leavenworth
Ft Leavenworth
Ft Leavenworth
Wakeeney
Wakeeney
Moscow Public Schools
Moscow Public Schools
Hugoton Public Schools
Hugoton Public Schools
Hugoton Public Schools
Norton Community Schools
Norton Community Schools
Norton Community Schools
Northern Valley
Northern Valley
Northern Valley
West Solomon Valley Sch
West Solomon Valley Sch
Ulysses
Ulysses
Ulysses
Ulysses
Ulysses
Lakin
Lakin
Lakin
Deerfield
Deerfield
Deerfield
Building
Number School Name
221
238
240
246
250
260
272
274
286
288
290
294
306
308
342
344
356
357
358
374
378
380
404
406
408
424
426
443
444
446
450
452
466
467
468
482
483
484
Robert E Clark Middle
Leon Elem
Bluestem High
Haverhill Elem
Bluestem Middle School
Frederic Remington High
Potwin Elem
Whitewater Elem
Bradley Elem
Eisenhower Elem
MacArthur Elem
Patton Jr High
WaKeeney Elem
Trego Community High
Moscow Elem
Moscow High
Hugoton Elem
Hugoton Middle
Hugoton High
Eisenhower Elem
Norton Jr High
Norton High
Almena Elem
Northern Valley High
Long Island Elem
Lenora Elem
Lenora High
Kepley Middle School
Sullivan Elem
Ulysses High
Hickok Elem
Red Rock Elem
Lakin Elem
Lakin Middle
Lakin High
Deerfield Elem
Deerfield Middle School
Deerfield High
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
538
203
256
154
187
160
203
190
406
536
567
367
321
215
98
108
548
175
310
363
116
260
66
74
61
71
31
433
325
503
408
111
428
138
209
171
79
132
600
200
300
200
250
300
300
250
550
550
550
500
500
400
130
200
650
200
325
500
150
375
100
200
100
160
180
500
410
585
475
200
300
350
300
240
150
270
1983
1972
1957
1978
1963
1950
1923
1965
1952
1956
1958
1950
1951
1936
1959
1947
1961
1931
1957
1937
1976
1924
1923
1917
1955
1924
1951
1954
1969
1962
1947
1950
1986
1931
1957
1992
1950
Distict
Number District Name
D0217
D0217
D0218
D0218
D0218
D0219
D0219
D0220
D0220
D0220
D0221
D0221
D0222
D0222
D0223
D0223
D0223
D0223
D0224
D0224
D0224
D0224
D0225
D0225
D0226
D0226
D0227
D0227
D0228
D0228
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
Rolla
Rolla
Elkhart
Elkhart
Elkhart
Minneola
Minneola
Ashland
Ashland
Ashland
North Central
North Central
Washington Schools
Washington Schools
Barnes
Barnes
Barnes
Barnes
Clifton-Clyde
Clifton-Clyde
Clifton-Clyde
Clifton-Clyde
Fowler
Fowler
Meade
Meade
Jetmore
Jetmore
Hanston
Hanston
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Building
Number School Name
496
498
514
516
520
536
538
552
553
554
576
582
594
596
620
622
628
630
658
660
666
668
684
686
700
702
722
724
748
750
756
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
Rolla Elem. (K-8)
Rolla High (9-12
Elkhart Middle School
Elkhart Elem
Elkhart High
Minneola Elem
Minneola High
Ashland Elem
Ashland Middle
Ashland High
North Central Elem
North Central High
Washington Elem
Washington High
Hanover Elem
Hanover High
Linn Elem
Linn High
Clifton Elem K-5
Clifton-Clyde Elem 6-8
Clyde Elem K-5
Clifton-Clyde Sr High
Fowler Elem
Fowler High
Meade Elem
Meade High
Jetmore Elem
Jetmore High
Hanston Elem
Hanston High
Lakewood Elementary
Oxford Middle
Stanley Elem
Blue Valley North High
Blue Valley High
Morse Elem
Valley Park Elem
Leawood Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
164
69
188
204
190
182
100
144
38
96
99
51
196
184
178 s
92
156
77
80
90
81
129
81
111
337
140
237
112
52
88
399
595
564
1610
1576
440
303
398
210
150
250
300
250
252
200
165
150
150
150
200
150
350
140
145
150
150
250
200
300
200
275
350
160
300
300
140
125
587
725
587
1600
1470
490
587
529
1946
1925
1957
1958
1962
1956
1930
1937
1962
1962
1925
1926
1931
1965
1930
1930
1950
1950
1980
1949
1917
1958
1965
1950
1926
1971
1960
1951
1954
1984
1999
1988
1988
1986
1971
1980
1985
1978
Distict
Number District Name
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0229
D0230
D0230
D0230
D0230
D0231
D0231
D0231
D0231
D0231
D0232
D0232
D0232
D0232
D0232
D0232
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Spring Hill
Spring Hill
Spring Hill
Spring Hill
Gardner-Edgerton-Antioch
Gardner-Edgerton-Antioch
Gardner-Edgerton-Antioch
Gardner-Edgerton-Antioch
Gardner-Edgerton-Antioch
De Soto
De Soto
De Soto
De Soto
De Soto
De Soto
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Building
Number School Name
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
7773
7774
7775
7776
7786
7787
7788
788
789
790
792
804
806
808
812
814
825
832
835
836
837
838
846
847
849
850
Stilwell Elem
Tomahawk Ridge Elem
Blue Valley Middle
Mission Trail Elem
Leawood Middle School
Overland Trail Elem
Indian Valley Elem
Overland Trail Middle
Oak Hill Elem
Cottonwood Point Elem
Harmony Middle
Harmony Elementary
Prairie Star Elementary
Blue Valley Northwest High
Heartland Elementary
Prairie Star Middle
Blue River Elem
Pleasant Ridge Middle School
Sunset Ridge Elem
Spring Hill Elem
Hilltop Elem
Spring Hill High
Spring Hill Middle
Gardner Elem
Nike Middle
Gardner Edgerton High
Edgerton Elem
Sunflower Elementary
Clear Creek Elem
De Soto High School
Monticello Trails Middle School
Lexington Trails Middle School
Starside Elem
Woodsonia Elem
Regency Place Elementary
Frontier Trail Jr High
Brougham Elem
Central Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
472
418
484
524
568
470
361
651
518
485
709
500
378
1609
590
561
471
457
521
551
106
435
330
568
655
708
238
499
554
762
405
241
593
394
413
812
489
260
529
529
750
587
650
587
587
750
587
587
750
587
587
1600
587
750
587
750
587
510
106
527
500
546
521
728
356
498
550
750
500
340
550
413
576
880
576
312
1955
1988
1976
1989
1981
1990
1982
1990
1987
1990
1992
1992
1993
1993
1995
1996
1997
1997
1998
1993
1953
1995
1975
1996
1958
1979
1954
1996
1998
1995
1995
1968
1998
1964
1999
1989
1985
1952
Distict
Number District Name
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0233
D0234
D0234
D0234
D0234
D0235
D0235
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Olathe
Fort Scott
Fort Scott
Fort Scott
Fort Scott
Uniontown
Uniontown
Building
Number School Name
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
867
868
870
871
872
874
875
876
877
885
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
898
900
902
904
964
966
Indian Creek Elem
Fairview Elem
Briarwood Elem
Ridgeview Elem
Walnut Grove Elem
Prairie Center Elem
Pioneer Trail Jr High
Washington Elem
Countryside Elementary
Westview Elem
Santa Fe Trail Jr High
Oregon Trail Jr High
Indian Trail Jr High
Olathe North Sr High
Olathe South Sr High
Heartland Learning Center
Meadow Lane Elem
Rolling Ridge Elem
Northview Elem
Havencroft Elem
Scarborough Elem
Heritage Elementary
Black Bob Elem
Tomahawk Elem
Olathe East Sr High
Green Springs Elem
Mahaffie Elem
Pleasant Ridge Elem
Heatherstone Elem
Bentwood Elem
California Trail Jr High
Cedar Creek Elem
Eugene Ware Elem
Winfield Scott Elem
Fort Scott Middle School
Fort Scott Sr High
Uniontown High School
West Bourbon Elementary
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
431
426
483
248
453
429
590
434
529
269
777
732
734
1418
1442
144
384
473
335
392
592
434
504
399
1384
432
501
474
530
564
921
341
418
502
170
707
175
356
576
464
576
480
624
576
800
636
576
336
960
780
900
1520
1560
125
480
528
456
480
576
480
576
552
1540
552
576
576
576
576
850
576
500
540
600
700
290
320
1985
1964
1988
1956
1985
1980
1986
1975
1988
1954
1968
1976
1981
1958
1981
1976
1951
1972
1967
1972
1977
1988
1978
1980
1992
1991
1991
1991
1995
1996
1996
1997
1934
1956
1918
1979
1958
1975
Distict
Number District Name
D0237
D0237
D0238
D0238
D0239
D0239
D0239
D0240
D0240
D0240
D0240
D0241
D0241
D0242
D0242
D0243
D0243
D0243
D0243
D0244
D0244
D0244
D0245
D0245
D0245
D0245
D0246
D0246
D0247
D0247
D0247
D0247
D0247
D0248
D0248
D0248
D0249
D0249
Smith Center
Smith Center
West Smith County
West Smith County
North Ottawa County
North Ottawa County
North Ottawa County
Twin Valley
Twin Valley
Twin Valley
Twin Valley
Wallace County Schools
Wallace County Schools
Weskan
Weskan
Lebo-Waverly
Lebo-Waverly
Lebo-Waverly
Lebo-Waverly
Burlington
Burlington
Burlington
LeRoy-Gridley
LeRoy-Gridley
LeRoy-Gridley
LeRoy-Gridley
Northeast
Northeast
Cherokee
Cherokee
Cherokee
Cherokee
Cherokee
Girard
Girard
Girard
Frontenac Public Schools
Frontenac Public Schools
Building
Number School Name
1010
1012
1030
1032
1050
1060
1064
1078
1080
1088
1090
1104
1106
1120
1122
1134
1136
1138
1140
1152
1154
1162
1174
1176
1178
1180
1194
1198
1220
1226
1230
1232
1234
1258
1260
1262
1287
1292
Smith Center Elem
Smith Center Jr Sr High
Kensington Elem
Kensington High
Delphos Elem
Minneapolis Elementary
Minneapolis High
Bennington Elem
Bennington High
Tescott Elem
Tescott High
Sharon Springs Elem
Wallace County High
Weskan Elem
Weskan High
Lebo Elem
Lebo High
Waverly Elem
Waverly High
Burlington Elem K-5
Burlington High
Burlington Middle 6-8
LeRoy Elem
LeRoy High
Gridley Elem
Gridley High
Northeast Elem
North East High
Cherokee Elem
McCune Elem
South East High
Weir Elem
West Mineral Elem
R V Haderlein Elem
Girard Middle
Girard High
Frank Layden Elem
Frontenac Jr/Sr High
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
268
311
113
101
219
230
249
316
126
145
87
181
114
90
43
170
169
141
133
333
356
205
128
63
109
64
366
192
232
157
250
140
63
505
270
396
384
306
400
400
175
230
325
330
500
250
250
125
210
160
90
110
175
205
150
140
480
340
260
200
110
200
110
475
300
265
180
300
175
100
600
400
500
350
1954
1973
1955
1947
1952
1938
1961
1960
1995
1959
1915
1955
1997
1921
1921
1982
1927
1957
1936
1957
1979
1980
1932
1928
1934
1922
1955
1977
1925
1924
1960
1916
1936
1954
1963
1963
1971
1995
Distict
Number District Name
D0250
D0250
D0250
D0250
D0250
D0251
D0251
D0251
D0251
D0252
D0252
D0252
D0252
D0253
D0253
D0253
D0253
D0253
D0253
D0253
D0253
D0253
D0253
D0253
D0253
D0254
D0254
D0254
D0255
D0255
D0255
D0256
D0256
D0257
D0257
D0257
D0257
D0257
Pittsburg
Pittsburg
Pittsburg
Pittsburg
Pittsburg
North Lyon County
North Lyon County
North Lyon County
North Lyon County
Southern Lyon County
Southern Lyon County
Southern Lyon County
Southern Lyon County
Emporia
Emporia
Emporia
Emporia
Emporia
Emporia
Emporia
Emporia
Emporia
Emporia
Emporia
Emporia
Barber County North
Barber County North
Barber County North
South Barber
South Barber
South Barber
Marmaton Valley
Marmaton Valley
Iola
Iola
Iola
Iola
Iola
Building
Number School Name
1302
1304
1310
1314
1316
1346
1350
1358
1360
1382
1388
1392
1394
1410
1412
1414
1415
1416
1418
1420
1422
1423
1424
1428
1450
1470
1472
1474
1508
1516
1518
1536
1538
1556
1558
1560
1562
1564
Geo E Nettels Elem
Lakeside Elem
Westside Elem
Pittsburg Middle School
Pittsburg High
Admire Elem
Americus Elem
Northern Heights
Reading Elem
Hartford High
Neosho Rapids K Thru 8
Olpe Elem K-8
Olpe High
Mary Herbert Elem
Maynard Elem
Village Elem
Lowther South Intermediate School 5th
Walnut Elem
W A White Elem
Emporia Alternative School
Emporia Middle School
Lowther North Intermediate School 6th
Emporia High
Logan Ave Elem
Butcher Children's School
Medicine Lodge Middle School
Medicine Lodge Primary Elem
Medicine Lodge High
South Barber Middle
South Barber Elem
South Barber High
Marmaton Valley Elem
Marmaton Valley High
Jefferson Elem
Lincoln Elem
McKinley Elem
Iola Middle School
Iola Sr High
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
385
552
301
570
853
150
231
249
94
114
248
184
131
256
223
386
318
254
312
31
762
358
1589
277
122
212
277
248
86
124
131
205
226
267
275
139
390
515
340
575
265
800
900
200
250
275
125
130
320
220
130
288
245
365
350
305
305
80
750
350
1350
288
131
250
300
305
150
220
200
350
360
306
312
160
275
500
1954
1926
1951
1921
1978
1925
1940
1955
1995
1915
1936
1968
1952
1929
1951
1963
1924
1950
1949
1942
1993
1923
1974
1973
1961
1919
1950
1960
1951
1935
1973
1937
1951
1939
1939
1950
1924
1916
Distict
Number District Name
D0257
D0257
D0258
D0258
D0258
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
Iola
Iola
Humboldt
Humboldt
Humboldt
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Building
Number School Name
1566
1578
1590
1592
1600
1614
1616
1618
1622
1623
1624
1626
1632
1634
1636
1640
1644
1646
1648
1650
1652
1653
1654
1658
1659
1660
1674
1676
1677
1678
1682
1684
1686
1688
1690
1692
1694
1696
LaHarpe Elem
Crossroads Alternative School
Humboldt Elem School
Humboldt High School
Humboldt Middle School
Adams Elem
Alcott/Burger King Academy
Allen Elem
Benton Elem
Beech Elem
Black Traditional Magnet Elem
Booth Early Childhood
Bryant Core Knowledge Magent
Buckner Performing Arts Magnet Elem
Caldwell Elem
Cessna Elem
Chisholm Trail Elem
Clark Elem
Cleaveland Traditional Magnet Elementary
Cloud Elem
College Hill Elem
Colvin Elem
Dodge/Edison Partnership
Earhart Environ Magnet Elem
Emerson Open Magnet Elem
Enterprise Elem
Franklin Elem
Funston Elem
Gammon Elem
Gardiner Elem
Greiffenstein Special Ed Center
Griffith Elem
Price/Harris Communications Magnet
Harry Street Elem
Hyde Intl Studies/Commun Elem Magnet
Ingalls Edison Academy
Horace Mann/Irving Foreign Lang Mag
Isely Edison Academy
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
70
22
200
178
130
290
81
292
370
554
332
234
367
314
438
365
529
285
316
753
462
743
626
322
238
413
340
408
615
472
60
338
231
277
314
666
405
274
125
966
500
500
700
450
123
300
450
600
332
300
480
600
450
300
600
300
300
600
475
850
625
330
300
450
350
450
600
500
100
333
200
300
333
700
419
450
1977
1970
1962
1922
1996
1948
1926
1952
1957
1984
1954
1954
1956
1955
1950
1960
1954
1956
1956
1954
1977
1978
1938
1946
1953
1919
1941
1926
1984
1927
1950
1958
1956
1889
1930
1926
1941
1949
Distict
Number District Name
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Building
Number School Name
1698
1702
1704
1706
1708
1710
1712
1715
1716
1718
1720
1724
1736
1740
1742
1744
1746
1754
1756
1758
1760
1764
1766
1772
1778
1780
1782
1790
1792
1796
1798
1800
1802
1804
1805
1806
1808
1810
Jefferson Elem
Kellogg Science/Tech Magnet Elem
Kelly Liberal Arts Academy
Kensler Elem
Bostic Traditional Magnet Elem
Lewis Open Magnet Elem
Lawrence Elem
Levy Sp Ed Center
Lincoln Elem
Linwood Elementary
Little Early Childhood Ed Ctr
L'Ouverture Computer Technology Magnet
McCollom Elem
McLean Science/Tech Magnet Elem
Metro Meridian Alt High
Minneha Elem
Mueller Elem
O K Elem
Horace Mann/Park Foreign Lang Magnet Ele
Payne Elem
Peterson Elem
Price/Harris Communications Magnet
Riverside Cultural Arts / History Magnet
Seltzer Elem
Pleasant Valley Elem
Sowers Special Education Center
Stanley Elem
Washington Accelerated Learning Elem
Wells Alternative Middle School
White Elem
Anderson Elem
Woodland Health / Wellness Magnet Elem
Woodman Elem
Allison Traditional Magnet Middle
Arkansas Gateway Middle School
Brooks Magnet Middle School
Curtis Middle School
Coleman Middle School
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
373
292
539
557
343
211
468
118
251
258
205
370
402
304
180
649
573
301
194
343
508
226
262
341
322
116
368
410
101
267
554
291
650
499
21
688
833
1019
450
300
600
600
450
200
450
115
300
300
250
450
450
300
200
700
600
300
450
450
520
200
300
700
450
100
450
470
85
300
600
300
600
500
90
750
800
800
1942
1941
1957
1958
1956
1954
1952
1981
1938
1910
1954
1951
1959
1955
1924
1948
1952
1924
1921
1954
1932
1956
1910
1951
1948
1952
1930
1919
1956
1957
1953
1889
1962
1919
1942
1956
1953
1965
Distict
Number District Name
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0259
D0260
D0260
D0260
D0260
D0260
D0260
D0260
D0260
D0260
D0260
D0260
D0260
D0261
D0261
D0261
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Wichita
Derby
Derby
Derby
Derby
Derby
Derby
Derby
Derby
Derby
Derby
Derby
Derby
Haysville
Haysville
Haysville
Building
Number School Name
1812
1814
1816
1818
1820
1823
1824
1826
1828
1830
1833
1834
1836
1837
1838
1840
1842
1844
1846
1847
1852
1947
1948
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1941
1942
1944
1956
1957
1958
Hadley Middle School
Hamilton Middle School
Jardine/Edison Partnership Middle
Horace Mann Foreign Lang Elem Magnet
Marshall Middle School
Northeast Magnet High & Downtown Law Cam
Mayberry Magnet Middle School
Mead Middle School
Pleasant Valley Middle School
Robinson Middle School
Wilbur Middle School
Truesdell Middle School
East High
Metro Blvd Alt High
North High
South High
Southeast High
West High
Heights High
Northwest High
Metro Midtown Alt High
Arkansas Avenue Gateway High School
Chisholm Life Skills Center
Derby Middle Sch
El Paso Elem
Oaklawn Elem
Derby Sixth Grade Center
Paul B Cooper Elem
Pleasantview Elem
Swaney Elem
Wineteer Elem
Carlton Math Science Magnet
Derby Hills Elem
Derby High School
Tanglewood Elem
Campus High Haysville
Haysville Alternative High
Haysville Middle School
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
692
553
822
468
554
570
631
495
600
709
916
1036
2181
180
1691
1597
1808
1469
1477
1563
165
11
107
1098
375
226
524
255
310
389
533
238
440
2079
350
1091
335
1008
750
600
900
600
600
530
750
600
750
750
1000
1051
2200
180
1750
1750
1800
1600
1800
1800
180
130
1118
364
294
546
272
362
408
518
229
432
1850
408
1400
170
1200
1957
1919
1957
1917
1939
1951
1954
1951
1955
1932
1966
1955
1922
1924
1929
1959
1957
1953
1961
1978
1913
1947
1949
1951
1966
1954
1951
1954
1954
1956
1959
1960
1985
1994
1982
1960
1997
1960
Distict
Number District Name
D0261
D0261
D0261
D0261
D0261
D0262
D0262
D0262
D0262
D0262
D0263
D0263
D0263
D0263
D0263
D0264
D0264
D0264
D0264
D0265
D0265
D0265
D0265
D0265
D0266
D0266
D0266
D0266
D0266
D0266
D0267
D0267
D0267
D0267
D0267
D0267
D0267
D0268
Haysville
Haysville
Haysville
Haysville
Haysville
Valley Center
Valley Center
Valley Center
Valley Center
Valley Center
Mulvane
Mulvane
Mulvane
Mulvane
Mulvane
Clearwater
Clearwater
Clearwater
Clearwater
Goddard
Goddard
Goddard
Goddard
Goddard
Maize
Maize
Maize
Maize
Maize
Maize
Renwick
Renwick
Renwick
Renwick
Renwick
Renwick
Renwick
Cheney
Building
Number School Name
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
1960
1964
1966
1967
1968
1980
1981
1984
1985
1986
1992
1994
1996
1997
1998
2010
2011
2012
2014
2025
2026
2027
2028
2030
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2050
2062
2064
2066
2068
2070
2072
2074
2090
Freeman Elem
Nelson Elem
Oatville Elem
Early Childhood Center Haysville
Rex Elem
Abilene Elem
Wheatland Elem
West Elem
Valley Center Middle School
Valley Center High
Mulvane Elem W D Munson
Mulvane Intermediate 5-6
Mulvane High
Mulvane Middle School 7-8
Mulvane Grade School
Clearwater Elementary East
Clearwater Elementary West
Clearwater Middle
Clearwater High
Clark Davidson Elem
Goddard Primary Learning Ctr
Goddard Middle School
Goddard Intermediate Learning Ctr
Goddard High
Pray-Woodman Elementary 2-4
Maize East Elementary 5-6
Maize Elementary 2-4
Vermillion Primary K-1
Maize Middle School
Maize Sr High
Andale Elem-Middle
Andale High
Colwich Elem
Garden Plain Elem
Garden Plain High
St Joseph Elem
St Marks Elem
Cheney Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
412
540
401
132
485
340
374
353
522
763
421
302
672
329
285
156
367
288
348
555
492
569
863
1082
668
849
618
743
824
1499
329
316
342
316
250
68
297
346
400
500
400
70
500
360
400
400
700
1000
450
400
750
400
400
212
410
300
400
750
575
650
1000
1400
840
850
800
900
900
1600
425
350
450
600
300
100
375
450
1961
1953
1953
1960
1955
1952
1992
1960
1957
1968
1960
1936
1997
1954
1986
1952
1989
1974
1960
1990
1953
1971
1966
1997
1995
1983
1998
1958
1953
1996
1964
1938
1958
1973
1947
1922
1962
1953
Distict
Number District Name
D0268
D0268
D0269
D0269
D0269
D0270
D0270
D0271
D0271
D0272
D0272
D0272
D0272
D0272
D0272
D0273
D0273
D0274
D0274
D0274
D0274
D0275
D0275
D0278
D0278
D0278
D0279
D0279
D0279
D0280
D0280
D0281
D0281
D0281
D0282
D0282
D0282
D0283
Cheney
Cheney
Palco
Palco
Palco
Plainville
Plainville
Stockton
Stockton
Waconda
Waconda
Waconda
Waconda
Waconda
Waconda
Beloit
Beloit
Oakley
Oakley
Oakley
Oakley
Triplains
Triplains
Mankato
Mankato
Mankato
Jewell
Jewell
Jewell
West Graham-Morland
West Graham-Morland
Hill City
Hill City
Hill City
West Elk
West Elk
West Elk
Elk Valley
Building
Number School Name
2091
2092
2110
2114
2116
2136
2138
2156
2158
2170
2172
2174
2176
2178
2186
2214
2218
2258
2262
2266
2268
2286
2288
2346
2348
2350
2370
2372
2374
2390
2392
2412
2414
2416
2442
2444
2448
2470
Cheney Middle School 6-8
Cheney High
Damar Jr High
Palco Elem
Palco High
Plainville Elem
Plainville High
Stockton Elem
Stockton High
Cawker City Elem
Waconda East High
Downs Elem
Downs High
Glen Elder Elem
Tipton Elem
Beloit Elem
Beloit Jr-Sr High
Monument Elem
Oakley Elem
Oakley Sr High
Oakley Middle School
Winona Elem
Winona High
Mankato Elem
Mankato Jr High
Mankato High
Randall Elem
Jewell Senior High
Jewell Jr High
Morland Elem
Morland High
Hill City Elem
Longfellow Middle
Hill City High
Howard West Elk Jr-Sr High
Moline Elem
Severy Elem
Elk Valley Elementary
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
200
221
38
68
64
307
164
304
145
56
77
157
93
90
79
410
414
73
79
189
142
52
40
135
48
101
83
66
37
40
47
174
91
150
234
141
134
104
300
225
150
180
250
450
350
450
200
155
147
198
161
125
141
456
520
136
166
229
161
175
175
325
150
150
130
125
125
150
225
250
120
300
550
165
165
120
1970
1996
1937
1922
1954
1938
1951
1995
1954
1961
1950
1962
1929
1938
1976
1954
1976
1928
1961
1954
1923
1926
1926
1956
1969
1969
1924
1922
1924
1951
1957
1946
1922
1959
1978
1952
1956
1958
Distict
Number District Name
D0283
D0284
D0284
D0284
D0285
D0285
D0286
D0286
D0287
D0287
D0287
D0287
D0287
D0288
D0288
D0289
D0289
D0290
D0290
D0290
D0290
D0290
D0290
D0290
D0291
D0291
D0291
D0292
D0292
D0293
D0293
D0294
D0294
D0295
D0295
D0297
D0297
D0298
Elk Valley
Chase County
Chase County
Chase County
Cedar Vale
Cedar Vale
Chautauqua Co Community
Chautauqua Co Community
West Franklin
West Franklin
West Franklin
West Franklin
West Franklin
Central Heights
Central Heights
Wellsville
Wellsville
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Grinnell Public Schools
Grinnell Public Schools
Grinnell Public Schools
Wheatland
Wheatland
Quinter Public Schools
Quinter Public Schools
Oberlin
Oberlin
Prairie Heights
Prairie Heights
St Francis Comm Sch
St Francis Comm Sch
Lincoln
Building
Number School Name
2472
2488
2490
2492
2518
2520
2544
2546
2558
2566
2568
2570
2572
2584
2585
2620
2622
2641
2642
2644
2646
2648
2650
2652
2666
2670
2672
2688
2690
2710
2712
2738
2740
2764
2766
2812
2816
2840
Elk Valley High School
Chase Co Middle
Chase Co Elem
Chase County High
Cedar Vale Elem
Cedar Vale High
Sedan Elem
Sedan High
Appanoose Elem
Pomona Elem
Pomona High
Williamsburg Elem
Williamsburg High
Central Heights High
Central Heights Elem
Wellsville Elem
Wellsville High
Eisenhower Elem
Eugene Field Elem
Garfield Elem
Hawthorne Elem
Lincoln Elem
Ottawa Middle School
Ottawa Sr High
Grinnell Grade School
Grinnell Middle
Grinnell High
Wheatland Elem
Wheatland Middle/Senior High
Quinter Elem
Quinter Jr-Sr High
Oberlin Elem
Decatur Community Jr/Sr High
Jennings Elem
Jennings High
St Francis Elem
St Francis High
Lincoln Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
113
158
181
177
116
107
365
184
216
271
239
186
84
330
346
436
351
151
210
267
157
284
585
658
65
33
51
106
88
201
193
281
267
55
38
217
231
224
200
200
300
325
160
190
788
425
300
360
280
180
105
300
450
500
350
150
250
350
225
300
800
750
120
60
200
160
225
300
275
350
400
125
100
350
375
400
1924
1973
1904
1927
1974
1977
1949
1961
1989
1960
1965
1958
1958
1968
1968
1954
1971
1969
1937
1952
1926
1952
1918
1966
1923
1953
1930
1931
1968
1927
1939
1926
1938
1922
1922
1919
1930
1951
Distict
Number District Name
D0298
D0299
D0299
D0300
D0300
D0300
D0301
D0301
D0302
D0302
D0303
D0303
D0304
D0304
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0305
D0306
D0306
D0307
D0307
D0307
D0308
D0308
D0308
Lincoln
Sylvan Grove
Sylvan Grove
Comanche County
Comanche County
Comanche County
Nes Tre La Go
Nes Tre La Go
Smoky Hill
Smoky Hill
Ness City
Ness City
Bazine
Bazine
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Salina
Southeast Of Saline
Southeast Of Saline
Ell-Saline
Ell-Saline
Ell-Saline
Hutchinson Public Schools
Hutchinson Public Schools
Hutchinson Public Schools
Building
Number School Name
2842
2866
2868
2890
2892
2894
2908
2910
2926
2928
2948
2952
2966
2968
2985
2986
2988
2992
2994
2996
3000
3002
3008
3014
3018
3020
3022
3024
3026
3027
3052
3056
3079
3080
3082
3100
3102
3106
Lincoln Jr/Sr High
Sylvan Unified Elem
Sylvan Unified High
South Central High School
South Central Elementary School
South Central Middle School
Utica Elem
Utica High
Ransom Elem
Ransom Jr/Sr High
Ness City Elem
Ness City High
Bazine Elem
Bazine High
Coronado Elem
Franklin-Lowell Elementary
Frank Hageman Elem
Hawthorne Elem
Heusner Elem
John F Kennedy Early Learning Cntr
Meadowlark Ridge Elem
Oakdale Elem
Schilling Elem
Stewart Elem
Sunset Elem
Whittier-Bartlett
Roosevelt Lincoln Middle
Salina South Middle
Salina High Central
Salina High South
Southeast Saline High
Southeast Saline Elem
Ell-Saline Middle School
Ell-Saline High
Happy Corner Elem
Allen Elem
Avenue A Elem
Faris Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
200
98
111
92
152
79
34
39
72
81
189
127
40
60
305
354
392
212
455
60
342
253
282
432
445
540
560
654
1235
1216
363
314 s
79
142
244
247
194
214
350
250
450
275
180
170
60
80
150
250
320
250
120
120
260
312
292
348
443
84
289
196
394
443
437
391
655
527
1048
1041
350
140
260
260
350
250
250
1952
1967
1964
1954
1927
1936
1928
1954
1968
1941
1964
1956
1926
1964
1926
1954
1912
1950
1965
1963
1931
1957
1960
1954
1919
1915
1959
1952
1970
1978
1978
1926
1926
1964
1939
1939
1961
Distict
Number District Name
D0308
D0308
D0308
D0308
D0308
D0308
D0308
D0308
D0308
D0308
D0309
D0309
D0309
D0309
D0309
D0310
D0310
D0310
D0310
D0311
D0311
D0311
D0312
D0312
D0312
D0312
D0312
D0312
D0312
D0313
D0313
D0313
D0313
D0313
D0313
D0314
D0314
D0315
Hutchinson Public Schools
Hutchinson Public Schools
Hutchinson Public Schools
Hutchinson Public Schools
Hutchinson Public Schools
Hutchinson Public Schools
Hutchinson Public Schools
Hutchinson Public Schools
Hutchinson Public Schools
Hutchinson Public Schools
Nickerson
Nickerson
Nickerson
Nickerson
Nickerson
Fairfield
Fairfield
Fairfield
Fairfield
Pretty Prairie
Pretty Prairie
Pretty Prairie
Haven Public Schools
Haven Public Schools
Haven Public Schools
Haven Public Schools
Haven Public Schools
Haven Public Schools
Haven Public Schools
Buhler
Buhler
Buhler
Buhler
Buhler
Buhler
Brewster
Brewster
Colby Public Schools
Building
Number School Name
3108
3114
3116
3118
3122
3124
3126
3130
3132
3134
3162
3164
3166
3168
3170
3186
3188
3194
3195
3218
3220
3222
3231
3232
3233
3234
3238
3240
3244
3252
3254
3258
3260
3262
3264
3276
3278
3290
Graber Elem
Lincoln Elem
McCandless Elem
Morgan Elem
Roosevelt Elem
Wiley Elem
Winans Elem
Liberty Middle
Sherman Middle
Hutchinson High
Mitchell Elem
Nickerson Elem
Nickerson High
North Reno Elem
South Hutchinson Elem
Fairfield East Elem
Fairfield High
Fairfield West Elem
Fairfield Middle
Pretty Prairie Elem
Pretty Prairie High
Pretty Prairie Middle
Elreka Elem
Haven Elem
Haven Middle School
Haven High
Yoder Elem
Partridge Elem
Mt Hope Elem
Buhler Elem
Buhler High
Obee Elem
Prosperity Elem
Prairie Hills Middle
Union Valley Elem
Brewster Elem
Brewster High
Colby Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
300
227
485
372
247
217
122
451
337
1397
65
318
444
185
341
93
138
102
96
104
117
97
54
261
110
354
91
70
151
308
777
181
191
365
495
79
83
445
400
300
450
400
300
250
300
500
500
1500
125
400
600
350
400
120
160
120
120
200
160
160
140
200
160
375
105
125
240
300
900
180
200
400
600
150
150
650
1953
1972
1950
1950
1920
1953
1920
1983
1983
1960
1960
1955
1956
1955
1956
1956
1963
1926
1993
1956
1921
1977
1958
1951
1990
1970
1955
1955
1997
1956
1931
1939
1954
1980
1953
1923
1923
1949
Distict
Number District Name
D0315
D0315
D0316
D0316
D0316
D0317
D0317
D0318
D0318
D0320
D0320
D0320
D0320
D0321
D0321
D0321
D0321
D0321
D0321
D0322
D0322
D0322
D0323
D0323
D0323
D0324
D0324
D0325
D0325
D0325
D0326
D0326
D0327
D0327
D0327
D0328
D0328
D0328
Colby Public Schools
Colby Public Schools
Golden Plains
Golden Plains
Golden Plains
Herndon
Herndon
Atwood
Atwood
Wamego
Wamego
Wamego
Wamego
Kaw Valley
Kaw Valley
Kaw Valley
Kaw Valley
Kaw Valley
Kaw Valley
Onaga-Havensville-Wheaton
Onaga-Havensville-Wheaton
Onaga-Havensville-Wheaton
Rock Creek
Rock Creek
Rock Creek
Eastern Heights
Eastern Heights
Phillipsburg
Phillipsburg
Phillipsburg
Logan
Logan
Ellsworth
Ellsworth
Ellsworth
Lorraine
Lorraine
Lorraine
Building
Number School Name
3292
3294
3314
3316
3318
3328
3330
3348
3350
3388
3396
3398
3399
3416
3420
3426
3428
3430
3432
3452
3456
3458
3488
3492
3495
3504
3508
3538
3540
3542
3562
3564
3594
3598
3600
3634
3636
3638
Colby Middle School
Colby Senior High
Golden Plains Middle
Golden Plains High
Golden Plains Elem
Herndon Elem
Herndon High
Atwood Elem
Atwood High
Wamego Middle School
Central Elem
Wamego High
West Elem
Delia Elem
Emmett Elem
Rossville Elem
Rossville High
St Marys Elem
St Marys High
Havensville Elem
Onaga Elem
Onaga Junior/Senior High
St George Elem
Westmoreland Elem
Rock Creek Jr/Sr High School
Eastern Heights Elem
Eastern Heights High
Phillipsburg Elem
Phillipsburg Middle
Phillipsburg High
Logan Elem
Logan High
Ellsworth Elem
Ellsworth High
Kanopolis Middle
Wilson Elem
Wilson Jr/Sr High
Quivira Heights Elem/Jr Hi
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
278
411
11
57
88
49
58
256
149
342
293
470
314
65
82
323
181
236
213
53
198
150
269
169
379
108
87
243
235
223
108
113
236
260
224
111
135
208
375
550
150
200
175
100
100
400
320
400
360
360
480
68
101
457
304
416
364
80
400
250
250
250
415
120
140
380
300
300
160
200
550
725
475
1248
1962
1996
1924
1924
1965
1950
1950
1965
1925
1992
1963
1939
1980
1955
1974
1944
1980
1975
1980
1937
1959
1951
1960
1927
1991
1919
1948
1953
1939
1961
1954
1969
1952
1955
1922
1998
1998
1998
Distict
Number District Name
D0328
D0329
D0329
D0329
D0329
D0329
D0330
D0330
D0330
D0330
D0331
D0331
D0331
D0331
D0332
D0332
D0332
D0333
D0333
D0333
D0333
D0334
D0334
D0334
D0334
D0335
D0335
D0336
D0336
D0336
D0336
D0337
D0337
D0337
D0338
D0338
D0339
D0339
Lorraine
Mill Creek Valley
Mill Creek Valley
Mill Creek Valley
Mill Creek Valley
Mill Creek Valley
Wabaunsee East
Wabaunsee East
Wabaunsee East
Wabaunsee East
Kingman - Norwich
Kingman - Norwich
Kingman - Norwich
Kingman - Norwich
Cunningham
Cunningham
Cunningham
Concordia
Concordia
Concordia
Concordia
Southern Cloud
Southern Cloud
Southern Cloud
Southern Cloud
North Jackson
North Jackson
Holton
Holton
Holton
Holton
Royal Valley
Royal Valley
Royal Valley
Valley Falls
Valley Falls
Jefferson County North
Jefferson County North
Building
Number School Name
3640
3650
3652
3664
3665
3667
3680
3684
3686
3688
3714
3716
3722
3724
3748
3750
3760
3780
3786
3793
3794
3832
3834
3836
3838
3861
3870
3886
3887
3890
3892
3916
3918
3921
3936
3938
3948
3950
Quivira Heights High
Alma Grade School
Wabaunsee Sr High
Paxico Grade School
Mill Creek Valley Junior High
Maple Hill Elem
Dover Elem
Eskridge Elem
Mission Valley High
Harveyville Elem
Kingman Elem
Kingman High
Norwich Elem
Norwich High
Cunningham Elem
Cunningham High
Zenda Elem
Concordia Elementary
Lincoln Elem
Concordia Middle
Concordia Jr-Sr High
Glasco Elem
Glasco High
Miltonvale Elem
Miltonvale High
Jackson Heights High
Jackson Heights Elem
Central Elem
Colorado Elem
Holton Middle
Holton High
Royal Valley Elementary
Royal Valley High
Royal Valley Middle School
Valley Falls Elem
Valley Falls High
Jefferson Co North High
Jefferson County North Elem/Middle
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
118
140
195
82
88
54
146
131
212
109
681
306
207
106
156
94
69
353
105
190
626
79
45
54
81
140
291
235
229
250
357
324
268
306
299
171
171
332
647
200
250
175
120
150
217
264
240
242
650
500
300
200
220
160
160
600
100
275
575
160
120
140
120
291
425
250
250
280
400
425
512
512
310
390
280
475
1998
1956
1937
1954
1929
1952
1950
1921
1970
1940
1980
1963
1955
1983
1948
1917
1988
1996
1957
1962
1929
1950
1921
1958
1963
1969
1975
1955
1955
1975
1994
1964
1971
1979
1958
1925
1980
1997
Distict
Number District Name
D0340
D0340
D0340
D0340
D0341
D0341
D0341
D0342
D0342
D0342
D0343
D0343
D0343
D0343
D0343
D0343
D0344
D0344
D0345
D0345
D0345
D0345
D0345
D0345
D0345
D0345
D0345
D0345
D0345
D0346
D0346
D0346
D0346
D0347
D0347
D0347
D0347
D0348
Jefferson West
Jefferson West
Jefferson West
Jefferson West
Oskaloosa Public Schools
Oskaloosa Public Schools
Oskaloosa Public Schools
McLouth
McLouth
McLouth
Perry Public Schools
Perry Public Schools
Perry Public Schools
Perry Public Schools
Perry Public Schools
Perry Public Schools
Pleasanton
Pleasanton
Seaman
Seaman
Seaman
Seaman
Seaman
Seaman
Seaman
Seaman
Seaman
Seaman
Seaman
Jayhawk
Jayhawk
Jayhawk
Jayhawk
Kinsley-Offerle
Kinsley-Offerle
Kinsley-Offerle
Kinsley-Offerle
Baldwin City
Building
Number School Name
3968
3969
3970
3972
3988
3989
3990
4006
4007
4008
4020
4022
4028
4029
4030
4032
4038
4040
4056
4058
4060
4064
4066
4068
4070
4072
4073
4074
4076
4088
4092
4094
4096
4112
4114
4118
4120
4140
Jefferson West Elem
Jefferson West Intermediate
Jefferson West High
Jefferson West Middle
Oskaloosa Elem
Oskaloosa Middle School
Oskaloosa High
McLouth Elem
McLouth Middle
McLouth High
Grantville Elem
Lecompton Elem
Perry Elem
Perry Middle
Perry Lecompton High
Williamstown Elem
Pleasanton Elem
Pleasanton High
East Indianola Elem
Elmont Elem
Indian Creek Elem
Lyman Elem
North Fairview Elem
Pleasant Hill Elem
Rochester Elem
West Indianola Elem
Logan Jr High
Northern Hills Jr High
Seaman High
Blue Mound Elem
Mound City Elem
Jayhawk-Linn High
Prescott Elem
Lincoln Elem
Southside Elem
Kinsley Sr High
Offerle Middle
Baldwin Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
250
142
306
260
334
177
246
259
150
168
74
183
188
168
335
95
229
194
243
154
167
147
189
285
268
253
329
457
744
57
190
301
59
54
56
135
101
399
400
235
300
400
300
200
80
230
230
240
400
100
200
200
400
340
280
260
380
340
340
380
640
620
1240
110
260
400
90
124
176
300
250
450
1939
1966
1996
1968
1972
1990
1961
1957
1981
1981
1956
1960
1948
1971
1971
1954
1962
1966
1950
1959
1954
1956
1958
1955
1952
1970
1954
1963
1970
1942
1922
1972
1925
1928
1930
1942
1956
1923
Distict
Number District Name
D0348
D0348
D0348
D0348
D0349
D0349
D0350
D0350
D0350
D0351
D0351
D0352
D0352
D0352
D0352
D0352
D0353
D0353
D0353
D0353
D0353
D0353
D0353
D0354
D0354
D0355
D0355
D0355
D0356
D0356
D0356
D0357
D0357
D0357
D0358
D0358
D0359
D0359
Baldwin City
Baldwin City
Baldwin City
Baldwin City
Stafford
Stafford
St John-Hudson
St John-Hudson
St John-Hudson
Macksville
Macksville
Goodland
Goodland
Goodland
Goodland
Goodland
Wellington
Wellington
Wellington
Wellington
Wellington
Wellington
Wellington
Claflin
Claflin
Ellinwood Public Schools
Ellinwood Public Schools
Ellinwood Public Schools
Conway Springs
Conway Springs
Conway Springs
Belle Plaine
Belle Plaine
Belle Plaine
Oxford
Oxford
Argonia Public Schools
Argonia Public Schools
Building
Number School Name
4141
4142
4144
4146
4158
4164
4176
4180
4182
4196
4200
4222
4224
4228
4231
4239
4260
4265
4266
4272
4274
4276
4278
4294
4296
4318
4320
4322
4340
4341
4342
4362
4363
4364
4388
4390
4404
4406
Baldwin Junior High School
Baldwin High
Marion Springs
Vinland Elem
Stafford Elementary
Stafford Middle School/High School
Hudson Elem
St John Elem
St John High
Macksville Elem
Macksville High
Central Elementary School
Grant Junior High
Goodland High
North Elem Goodland
West Elem Goodland
Eisenhower Elem
Kennedy Elem
Lincoln Elem
Roosevelt Elem
Washington Elem
Wellington Jr High
Wellington High
Claflin Elem
Claflin Junior/Senior High
Ellinwood Elem
Ellinwood Middle School
Ellinwood High
Conway Springs Kyle Trueblood
Conway Springs Middle School
Conway Springs High School
Belle Plaine Elem
Belle Plaine Middle
Belle Plaine High
Oxford Elem
Oxford Jr/Sr High
Argonia Elem
Argonia High
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
323
408
91
112
163
176
65
162
199
194
94
186
197
366
278
169
246
228
243
149
137
471
473
172
169
284
86
223
181
151
227
420
204
245
228
224
137
123
300
500
100
120
220
280
100
190
250
300
280
288
374
825
260
260
454
341
308
218
180
789
650
250
250
300
120
280
250
250
400
450
250
250
300
300
180
180
1969
1994
1963
1993
1955
1999
1953
1939
1939
1961
1925
1950
1927
1937
1969
1969
1970
1970
1954
1954
1918
1928
1959
1912
1964
1952
1926
1926
1959
1987
1997
1950
1985
1924
1929
1968
1957
1964
Distict
Number District Name
D0360
D0360
D0361
D0361
D0361
D0362
D0362
D0362
D0362
D0362
D0363
D0363
D0363
D0364
D0364
D0364
D0365
D0365
D0365
D0365
D0365
D0365
D0366
D0366
D0367
D0367
D0367
D0367
D0368
D0368
D0368
D0368
D0368
D0369
D0369
D0371
D0371
D0372
Caldwell
Caldwell
Anthony-Harper
Anthony-Harper
Anthony-Harper
Prairie View
Prairie View
Prairie View
Prairie View
Prairie View
Holcomb
Holcomb
Holcomb
Marysville
Marysville
Marysville
Garnett
Garnett
Garnett
Garnett
Garnett
Garnett
Woodson
Woodson
Osawatomie
Osawatomie
Osawatomie
Osawatomie
Paola
Paola
Paola
Paola
Paola
Burrton
Burrton
Montezuma
Montezuma
Silver Lake
Building
Number School Name
4420
4422
4438
4442
4458
4490
4496
4502
4504
4505
4516
4517
4518
4530
4545
4548
4586
4590
4592
4600
4610
4612
4639
4646
4662
4664
4665
4666
4690
4692
4694
4696
4700
4734
4736
4762
4764
4776
Caldwell Elem
Caldwell High
Anthony Elem
Chaparral High Anthony
Harper Elem
Fontana Elem
Lacygne Elem
Parker Elem
Prairie View Jr Hi (7-8)
Prairie View High
Holcomb Elem K-5
Holcomb Elementary (6-8)
Holcomb High
Beattie Elem
Marysville Elem
Marysville Jr/Sr High
Irving Primary
Garnett Elem
Greeley Elem
Mont Ida Elem
Westphalia
Anderson County Jr/Sr High School
Yates Center Elem
Yates Center High
Trojan Elem
Swenson Early Childhood Education Center
Osawatomie Middle School
Osawatomie High
Sunflower Elem
Hillsdale Elem
Paola Middle
Paola North Elem
Paola High
Burrton Elem
Burrton High
Montezuma Elem
South Gray High
Silver Lake Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
178
166
359
367
346
85
261
153
159
314
488
227
238
46
351
575
131
322
60
26
127
496
363
229
494
139
289
380
370
151
637
232
725
182
86
103
118
388
250
600
450
600
450
100
225
175
450
500
450
600
180
475
600
144
325
72
36
180
560
500
320
600
200
350
490
450
250
700
450
750
250
175
120
130
480
1926
1916
1928
1970
1938
1955
1988
1987
1970
1970
1954
1954
1983
1959
1989
1939
1938
1921
1949
1929
1941
1992
1969
1924
1998
1956
1983
1969
1985
1982
1970
1935
1992
1923
1923
1929
1925
1961
Distict
Number District Name
D0372
D0373
D0373
D0373
D0373
D0373
D0373
D0373
D0373
D0374
D0374
D0374
D0375
D0375
D0375
D0375
D0376
D0376
D0376
D0377
D0377
D0377
D0377
D0377
D0378
D0378
D0379
D0379
D0379
D0379
D0379
D0379
D0379
D0379
D0379
D0380
D0380
D0380
Silver Lake
Newton
Newton
Newton
Newton
Newton
Newton
Newton
Newton
Sublette
Sublette
Sublette
Circle
Circle
Circle
Circle
Sterling
Sterling
Sterling
Atchison Co Comm
Atchison Co Comm
Atchison Co Comm
Atchison Co Comm
Atchison Co Comm
Riley County
Riley County
Clay Center
Clay Center
Clay Center
Clay Center
Clay Center
Clay Center
Clay Center
Clay Center
Clay Center
Vermillion
Vermillion
Vermillion
Building
Number School Name
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
4778
4796
4799
4800
4802
4805
4807
4810
4816
4834
4836
4838
4850
4852
4854
4856
4864
4865
4866
4888
4890
4894
4906
4916
4950
4952
4970
4972
4974
4976
4982
4994
4998
5014
5016
5032
5034
5036
Silver Lake Jr-Sr High
Northridge Elem
Slate Creek Elementary
South Breeze Elem
Sunset Elem
Chisholm Middle
Santa Fe Middle
Newton Sr High
Walton Elem
Sublette Elem
Sublette High
Sublette Middle
Benton Elem
Circle High
Oil Hill Elem
Towanda Elem
Sterling Grade School
Sterling Junior High
Sterling High
Cummings Elem
Effingham Elem
Atchison Co Community High
Lancaster Elem
Atchison Co Community Middle
Riley County Grade Sch
Riley County High School
Garfield Elem
Lincoln Elem
Clay Center Community Middle
Clay Center High
Green Elem
Longford Elem
Morganville Elem
Wakefield Elem
Wakefield High
Centralia Elem
Centralia High
Frankfort Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
357
263
439
307
468
407
399
1159
99
255
169
78
356
470
152
498
290
90
165
49
137
294
78
258
398
223
150
282
302
436
43
21
72
184
96
156
157
171
400
300
450
350
450
450
450
1100
150
275
250
100
350
450
200
400
200
325
200
120
140
420
100
400
588
400
200
300
400
500
100
100
100
120
105
185
220
250
1953
1955
1997
1957
1954
1958
1914
1973
1963
1953
1961
1989
1954
1962
1957
1954
1927
1995
1955
1961
1938
1976
1936
1929
1982
1959
1941
1939
1993
1963
1930
1929
1926
1957
1948
1953
1953
1998
Distict
Number District Name
D0380
D0381
D0381
D0382
D0382
D0382
D0382
D0383
D0383
D0383
D0383
D0383
D0383
D0383
D0383
D0383
D0383
D0383
D0383
D0383
D0384
D0384
D0384
D0385
D0385
D0385
D0385
D0385
D0386
D0386
D0387
D0387
D0387
D0387
D0388
D0388
D0389
D0389
Vermillion
Spearville
Spearville
Pratt
Pratt
Pratt
Pratt
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Manhattan
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Blue Valley
Andover
Andover
Andover
Andover
Andover
Madison-Virgil
Madison-Virgil
Altoona-Midway
Altoona-Midway
Altoona-Midway
Altoona-Midway
Ellis
Ellis
Eureka
Eureka
Building
Number School Name
5038
5058
5060
5084
5088
5090
5092
5112
5113
5118
5122
5124
5126
5128
5130
5132
5135
5136
5137
5138
5160
5164
5166
5177
5179
5180
5181
5182
5198
5202
5214
5216
5220
5222
5236
5238
5260
5265
Frankfort High
Spearville Elem
Spearville Jr/Sr High
Mattie O Haskins Elem
Southwest Elem
Liberty Middle School
Pratt Sr High
Amanda Arnold Elem
Frank V Bergman Elem
Bluemont Elem
Eugene Field Elem
Lee Elem
Marlatt Elem
Northview Elem
Theo Roosevelt Elem
Woodrow Wilson Elem
Susan B Anthony Middle School
Manhattan High School West/East Campus
Dwight D Eisenhower Middle School
Ogden Elem
Olsburg Elem
Randolph Middle
Blue Valley High
Andover Intermediate
Andover Middle School
Andover High
Martin Primary North Campus K-3
Martin Primary South Campus K-3
Madison Elem
Madison High
Altoona Elem
Altoona-Midway Middle
Midway Elem
Altoona-Midway High School
Washington Elem
Ellis High
Mulberry Elem
Eureka Kindergarten
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
158
171
199
224
263
321
454
363
432
303
142
276
443
377
241
276
479
1936
495
191
106
99
84
461
711
954
389
447
132
138
60
79
78
127
219
145
336
61
245
350
350
240
270
380
520
480
456
336
144
336
456
480
336
336
600
2300
600
216
115
115
110
422
750
850
370
400
250
350
120
130
150
120
300
250
400
80
1958
1925
1937
1950
1962
1983
1938
1985
1995
1910
1917
1951
1960
1957
1922
1922
1996
1956
1996
1918
1959
1961
1961
1997
1996
1980
1989
1959
1962
1982
1954
1958
1957
1957
1960
1977
1917
1952
Distict
Number District Name
D0389
D0389
D0390
D0390
D0392
D0392
D0392
D0393
D0393
D0394
D0394
D0394
D0394
D0395
D0395
D0395
D0396
D0396
D0396
D0397
D0397
D0398
D0398
D0398
D0399
D0399
D0400
D0400
D0400
D0400
D0401
D0401
D0401
D0402
D0402
D0402
D0402
D0402
Eureka
Eureka
Hamilton
Hamilton
Osborne County
Osborne County
Osborne County
Solomon
Solomon
Rose Hill Public Schools
Rose Hill Public Schools
Rose Hill Public Schools
Rose Hill Public Schools
LaCrosse
LaCrosse
LaCrosse
Douglass Public Schools
Douglass Public Schools
Douglass Public Schools
Centre
Centre
Peabody-Burns
Peabody-Burns
Peabody-Burns
Paradise
Paradise
Smoky Valley
Smoky Valley
Smoky Valley
Smoky Valley
Chase-Raymond
Chase-Raymond
Chase-Raymond
Augusta
Augusta
Augusta
Augusta
Augusta
Building
Number School Name
5266
5268
5296
5298
5322
5332
5334
5354
5356
5370
5371
5372
5374
5389
5390
5396
5411
5413
5414
5434
5436
5456
5460
5462
5486
5488
5504
5505
5506
5508
5534
5536
5538
5554
5555
5556
5558
5560
Eureka Jr High
Eureka Sr High
Hamilton Elem
Hamilton High
Alton Osborne Jr Hi
Osborne Elem
Osborne High
Solomon Elem
Solomon High
Rose Hill Primary
Rose Hill Middle
Rose Hill High
Rose Hill Intermediate
LaCrosse Elementary
LaCrosse High
McCracken Middle Sch
Leonard C Seal Elem
Marvin Sisk Middle School
Douglass High
Centre Elem
Centre Jr/Sr High
Burns Elem
Peabody Elem
Peabody-Burns Jr/Sr High School
Natoma Elem
Natoma High (7-12)
Soderstrom Elem
Lindsborg Middle School
Smoky Valley High
Marquette Elem
Chase Elem
Chase High
Raymond Jr High
Garfield Elem
Ewalt Elementary
Lincoln Elem
Robinson Elem
Augusta Middle School
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
128
273
84
41
90
244
160
223
208
408
475
551
442
146
116
88
462
169
296
151
150
36
214
235
83
72
282
259
369
149
80
72
46
237
331
206
226
578
260
260
120
80
220
420
340
225
218
400
425
600
500
174
239
146
125
250
100
250
300
154
160
325
325
450
180
130
150
100
350
450
350
350
750
1984
1984
1951
1981
1914
1954
1929
1965
1996
1949
1978
1995
1940
1927
1955
1928
1953
1994
1972
1928
1958
1921
1973
1997
1950
1951
1962
1954
1998
1986
1936
1923
1924
1955
1994
1955
1961
1995
Distict
Number District Name
D0402
D0403
D0403
D0403
D0404
D0404
D0404
D0405
D0405
D0405
D0405
D0405
D0406
D0406
D0407
D0407
D0407
D0407
D0407
D0407
D0408
D0408
D0408
D0409
D0409
D0409
D0410
D0410
D0410
D0411
D0411
D0412
D0412
D0413
D0413
D0413
D0413
D0413
Augusta
Otis-Bison
Otis-Bison
Otis-Bison
Riverton
Riverton
Riverton
Lyons
Lyons
Lyons
Lyons
Lyons
Wathena
Wathena
Russell County
Russell County
Russell County
Russell County
Russell County
Russell County
Marion-Florence
Marion-Florence
Marion-Florence
Atchison Public Schools
Atchison Public Schools
Atchison Public Schools
Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh
Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh
Durham-Hillsboro-Lehigh
Goessel
Goessel
Hoxie Community Schools
Hoxie Community Schools
Chanute Public Schools
Chanute Public Schools
Chanute Public Schools
Chanute Public Schools
Chanute Public Schools
Building
Number School Name
5562
5588
5598
5600
5620
5621
5622
5636
5638
5640
5642
5646
5674
5676
5708
5710
5718
5720
5722
5724
5746
5748
5750
5761
5770
5776
5812
5814
5820
5834
5836
5852
5854
5870
5872
5874
5876
5880
Augusta Sr High
Otis-Bison Middle
Otis-Bison Elementary
Otis-Bison High
Riverton Elem
Riverton Middle
Riverton High
Lyons Central Elementary
Lyons Park Elementary
Lyons Middle School
Lyons High
Lyons South Elementary
Wathena Elem
Wathena High
Lucas-Luray High
Luray-Lucas Elem
Bickerdyke Elem
Simpson Elem
Ruppenthal Middle
Russell High
Marion Middle
Marion High
Marion Elem
Atchison Elementary School
Atchison High School
Atchison Middle School
Hillsboro Elem
Hillsboro High
Hillsboro Middle School
Goessel Elem
Goessel High
Hoxie Elem
Hoxie High
Alcott Elem
Hutton Elem
Lincoln Elem
Murray Elem
Royster Middle School
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
690
74
105
128
388
198
240
194
117
210
391
85
286
121
57
105
244
195
221
308
120
230
389
793
556
397
325
240
163
170
151
291
160
155
302
99
281
491
1000
200
200
200
450
200
350
200
200
300
500
200
400
220
150
200
400
300
400
500
180
250
450
1050
500
600
450
300
300
350
225
400
300
125
400
125
400
600
1970
1920
1916
1932
1951
1981
1982
1956
1973
1930
1968
1952
1964
1930
1959
1960
1952
1952
1938
1962
1998
1921
1960
1997
1976
1908
1961
1937
1995
1959
1935
1920
1920
1938
1951
1966
1950
1968
Distict
Number District Name
D0413
D0415
D0415
D0415
D0416
D0416
D0416
D0416
D0417
D0417
D0417
D0417
D0417
D0418
D0418
D0418
D0418
D0418
D0418
D0419
D0419
D0419
D0419
D0420
D0420
D0421
D0421
D0422
D0422
D0423
D0423
D0423
D0424
D0424
D0425
D0425
D0426
D0426
Chanute Public Schools
Hiawatha
Hiawatha
Hiawatha
Louisburg
Louisburg
Louisburg
Louisburg
Morris County
Morris County
Morris County
Morris County
Morris County
McPherson
McPherson
McPherson
McPherson
McPherson
McPherson
Canton-Galva
Canton-Galva
Canton-Galva
Canton-Galva
Osage City
Osage City
Lyndon
Lyndon
Greensburg
Greensburg
Moundridge
Moundridge
Moundridge
Mullinville
Mullinville
Highland
Highland
Pike Valley
Pike Valley
Building
Number School Name
5882
5936
5940
5949
5968
5970
5972
5978
5987
5990
5994
5998
6005
6028
6030
6032
6034
6038
6040
6064
6066
6068
6070
6088
6090
6102
6104
6118
6122
6140
6142
6146
6156
6158
6170
6172
6192
6194
Chanute High
Hiawatha Elem
Hiawatha Sr High
Robinson Middle School
Circle Grove Elem
Louisburg Elem
Louisburg High
Louisburg Middle
Prairie Heights Middle School
Council Grove Elem
Council Grove High
Prairie Heights Elem
Wilsey Elem
Eisenhower Elementary
Lincoln Elem
Roosevelt Elem
Washington Elem
McPherson Middle School
McPherson High
Canton Elem
Canton High
Galva Elem
Galva Middle
Osage City Elem
Osage City High
Lyndon Elem
Lyndon High
Delmer Day Elem/Middle School
Greensburg High
Moundridge Elem
Moundridge High
Moundridge Middle
Mullinville Elem
Mullinville Junior High
Highland Elem
Highland High
Pike Valley Elem
Pike Valley Jr High
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
651
360
362
343
133
432
420
348
94
428
366
77
68
269
244
344
255
637
951
117
129
112
52
585
209
318
176
174
88
168
167
130
64
11
146
130
124
74
750
500
450
400
135
400
400
275
160
550
425
160
150
315
430
430
290
800
1100
240
407
250
210
600
325
350
200
250
250
200
200
180
120
100
252
280
225
225
1914
1956
1972
1921
1959
1977
1992
1977
1986
1949
1917
1954
1929
1996
1980
1980
1936
1938
1963
1959
1964
1957
1972
1957
1935
1920
1930
1955
1922
1956
1965
1976
1950
1925
1895
1977
1966
1939
Distict
Number District Name
D0426
D0427
D0427
D0427
D0428
D0428
D0428
D0428
D0428
D0428
D0428
D0428
D0428
D0429
D0429
D0430
D0430
D0430
D0431
D0431
D0431
D0431
D0432
D0432
D0433
D0433
D0434
D0434
D0434
D0434
D0435
D0435
D0435
D0435
D0435
D0436
D0436
D0437
Pike Valley
Republic County
Republic County
Republic County
Great Bend
Great Bend
Great Bend
Great Bend
Great Bend
Great Bend
Great Bend
Great Bend
Great Bend
Troy Public Schools
Troy Public Schools
South Brown County
South Brown County
South Brown County
Hoisington
Hoisington
Hoisington
Hoisington
Victoria
Victoria
Midway Schools
Midway Schools
Santa Fe Trail
Santa Fe Trail
Santa Fe Trail
Santa Fe Trail
Abilene
Abilene
Abilene
Abilene
Abilene
Caney Valley
Caney Valley
Auburn Washburn
Building
Number School Name
6206
6220
6222
6224
6256
6268
6270
6272
6274
6276
6278
6280
6284
6324
6326
6344
6348
6350
6374
6376
6378
6380
6400
6402
6422
6426
6440
6444
6446
6448
6464
6466
6470
6475
6476
6490
6492
6512
Pike Valley High
Belleville East Elem
Belleville Middle
Belleville High
Eisenhower Elem
Jefferson Elem
Lincoln Elem
Morrison Elem
Park Elem
Riley Elem
Washington Elem
Great Bend Middle School
Great Bend High School
Troy Elem
Troy High and Middle School
Everest Middle
Horton Elem
Horton High
Lincoln Elem
Roosevelt Elem
Hoisington Middle
Hoisington High
Victoria Elem
Victoria High
Midway Elem
Midway Jr/Sr High
Carbondale Elem
Overbrook Elem
Santa Fe Trail High
Scranton Elem
Garfield Elem
Kennedy Elem
McKinley Elem
Abilene Middle School
Abilene High School
Lincoln Memorial Elem
Caney Valley High
Auburn Elementary
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
96
188
192
213
143
296
261
64
281
369
142
550
1080
202
212
214
301
232
114
202
168
254
187
104
125
113
435
0
459
164
213
206
222
376
483
505
457
442
180
250
250
250
325
325
325
325
325
300
525
1100
200
270
330
450
600
120
220
250
400
440
325
200
201
500
375
500
200
350
350
350
450
600
500
436
524
1963
1951
1931
1962
1954
1958
1958
1937
1953
1956
1919
1958
1950
1926
1927
1951
1973
1917
1926
1954
1956
1938
1961
1950
1978
1958
1983
1996
1970
1996
1941
1963
1951
1975
1955
1954
1973
1951
Distict
Number District Name
D0437
D0437
D0437
D0437
D0437
D0437
D0437
D0437
D0438
D0438
D0439
D0439
D0440
D0440
D0440
D0441
D0441
D0441
D0441
D0441
D0442
D0442
D0443
D0443
D0443
D0443
D0443
D0443
D0443
D0443
D0443
D0443
D0444
D0444
D0444
D0445
D0445
D0445
Auburn Washburn
Auburn Washburn
Auburn Washburn
Auburn Washburn
Auburn Washburn
Auburn Washburn
Auburn Washburn
Auburn Washburn
Skyline Schools
Skyline Schools
Sedgwick Public Schools
Sedgwick Public Schools
Halstead
Halstead
Halstead
Sabetha
Sabetha
Sabetha
Sabetha
Sabetha
Nemaha Valley Schools
Nemaha Valley Schools
Dodge City
Dodge City
Dodge City
Dodge City
Dodge City
Dodge City
Dodge City
Dodge City
Dodge City
Dodge City
Little River
Little River
Little River
Coffeyville
Coffeyville
Coffeyville
Building
Number School Name
6517
6518
6522
6527
6528
6530
6532
6533
6559
6560
6572
6574
6586
6592
6594
6618
6619
6620
6622
6624
6652
6654
6674
6678
6680
6682
6684
6686
6687
6688
6689
6702
6726
6728
6734
6758
6760
6762
Indian Hills Elementary
Pauline Central Primary
Pauline South Intermediate
Washburn Rural Middle School
Wanamaker Elem
Jay Shideler Elementary
Washburn Rural High
Washburn Rural Alternative High School
Skyline Elem
Skyline High
R L Wright Elem
Sedgwick High
Bentley Primary School
Halstead Middle School
Halstead High
Sabetha Elem
Sabetha Middle School
Sabetha High
Wetmore Elem
Wetmore High
Seneca Elem
Nemaha Valley High
Central Elem
Miller Elem
Northwest Elem
Sunnyside Elem
Dodge City Middle School
Dodge City High School
Beeson Elementary
Linn Elementary
Soule 6th Grade Center
Wilroads Gardens Elem
Little River Junior High
Little River High
Windom Elem
Edgewood Elem
Garfield Elem
Longfellow Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
515
384
294
819
499
545
1511
67
230
130
333
143
202
284
263
361
199
306
145
61
339
222
363
334
542
461
786
1436
421
524
413
144
57
94
125
258
425
132
588
480
326
1000
517
708
1800
70
230
140
415
185
227
422
358
400
350
350
160
100
350
300
300
400
450
450
800
1250
450
450
400
150
90
150
150
360
390
240
1988
1960
1958
1990
1940
1952
1964
1964
1967
1967
1957
1969
1942
1956
1970
1959
1991
1969
1929
1929
1938
1970
1927
1950
1958
1950
1957
1928
1995
1994
1995
1954
1937
1937
1954
1954
1953
1953
Distict
Number District Name
D0445
D0445
D0445
D0445
D0446
D0446
D0446
D0446
D0446
D0447
D0447
D0448
D0448
D0449
D0449
D0449
D0449
D0450
D0450
D0450
D0450
D0450
D0450
D0450
D0451
D0451
D0452
D0452
D0452
D0452
D0452
D0453
D0453
D0453
D0453
D0453
D0453
D0453
Coffeyville
Coffeyville
Coffeyville
Coffeyville
Independence
Independence
Independence
Independence
Independence
Cherryvale
Cherryvale
Inman
Inman
Easton
Easton
Easton
Easton
Shawnee Heights
Shawnee Heights
Shawnee Heights
Shawnee Heights
Shawnee Heights
Shawnee Heights
Shawnee Heights
B&B
B&B
Stanton County
Stanton County
Stanton County
Stanton County
Stanton County
Leavenworth
Leavenworth
Leavenworth
Leavenworth
Leavenworth
Leavenworth
Leavenworth
Building
Number School Name
6766
6768
6770
6772
6821
6822
6826
6828
6830
6870
6876
6896
6898
6916
6917
6918
6924
6938
6940
6942
6944
6945
6946
6948
6962
6964
6980
6982
6984
6986
6990
7002
7004
7008
7012
7014
7016
7017
Whittier Elem
McKinley Middle School
Roosevelt Middle
Field Kindley High
Eisenhower Elem
Lincoln Elem
Washington Elem
Independence Middle
Independence Sr High
Lincoln Central Elem
Cherryvale Sr / Middle School
Inman Elem
Inman Jr/Sr High School
Easton Elementary
Pleasant Ridge Middle
Pleasant Ridge High
Salt Creek Valley Intermediate
Berryton Elem
Shawnee Heights Elem
Shawnee Heights Sr High
Shawnee Heights High
Shawnee Heights Middle
Tecumseh North Elem
Tecumseh South Elem
Baileyville-St. Benedict High
St Benedict Elem
Big Bow Elem
Johnson Elem
Stanton County High
Manter Elem
Stanton County Middle
Anthony Elem
David Brewer Elem
Earl M Lawson Elem
Ben Day Elem
Howard Wilson Elem
Nettie Hartnett Elem
Leavenworth East Middle School
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
214
175
358
707
506
303
167
535
789
364
330
251
247
138
160
235
159
420
453
526
574
546
424
452
134
131
32
214
192
35
85
244
384
266
56
370
250
432
320
180
380
780
625
350
280
710
785
378
380
500
585
140
180
200
170
450
475
650
650
600
450
450
180
180
90
214
186
150
200
450
450
300
250
400
460
600
1953
1949
1923
1931
1991
1939
1939
1922
1953
1936
1974
1954
1929
1936
1994
1974
1958
1952
1974
1979
1970
1962
1928
1963
1952
1912
1959
1951
1978
1937
1930
1951
1956
1950
1923
1941
1923
1932
Distict
Number District Name
D0453
D0453
D0453
D0454
D0454
D0454
D0455
D0455
D0456
D0456
D0456
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0457
D0458
D0458
D0458
D0458
D0459
D0459
D0460
D0460
D0460
D0461
Leavenworth
Leavenworth
Leavenworth
Burlingame Public School
Burlingame Public School
Burlingame Public School
Hillcrest Rural Schools
Hillcrest Rural Schools
Marais Des Cygnes Valley
Marais Des Cygnes Valley
Marais Des Cygnes Valley
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Garden City
Basehor-Linwood
Basehor-Linwood
Basehor-Linwood
Basehor-Linwood
Bucklin
Bucklin
Hesston
Hesston
Hesston
Neodesha
Building
Number School Name
7018
7020
7022
7056
7057
7058
7074
7076
7094
7096
7104
7115
7118
7119
7120
7124
7126
7128
7130
7131
7132
7133
7138
7140
7142
7143
7147
7148
7160
7164
7170
7172
7184
7186
7206
7208
7210
7226
Leavenworth West Middle School
Leavenworth Sr High
Muncie Elem
Lincoln Middle School
Schuyler Elem
Burlingame High
Hillcrest Elem
Hillcrest High
Marais Des Cygnes Valley Elem
Marais Des Cygnes Valley High
Marais Des Cygnes Valley Middle
Edith Scheuerman Elem
Alta Brown Elem
Florence Wilson Elem
Garfield Elem
Buffalo Jones Elem
Georgia Matthews Elem
Abe Hubert Middle School
Garden City Sr High
Gertrude Walker Elem
Jennie Barker Elem
Jennie Wilson Elem
Kenneth Henderson Middle
Pierceville-Plymell Elem
Theoni Elem
Victor Ornelas Elem
Bernadine Sitts Intermediate Ctr
Charles O Stones Intermediate Ctr
Basehor Elem School
Basehor-Linwood High School
Linwood Elem
Basehor-Linwood Middle School
Bucklin Elem
Bucklin High
Hesston Elem
Hesston Middle
Hesston High
Heller Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
439
1419
246
107
145
117
106
51
100
106
94
324
322
369
344
408
312
554
1887
307
111
358
594
99
15
592
634
550
622
577
202
297
147
189
326
255
262
293
500
1500
300
230
240
220
142
140
100
100
120
300
300
300
300
350
300
600
1500
300
125
300
600
125
40
500
700
700
450
1000
285
400
200
200
400
400
400
305
1969
1959
1961
1926
1902
1959
1962
1962
1924
1924
1960
1985
1949
1981
1976
1958
1958
1963
1953
1974
1955
1966
1976
1952
1954
1989
1996
1996
1938
1963
1962
1920
1952
1962
1954
1964
1970
1968
Distict
Number District Name
D0461
D0461
D0462
D0462
D0463
D0463
D0464
D0464
D0464
D0465
D0465
D0465
D0465
D0465
D0465
D0465
D0465
D0465
D0466
D0466
D0466
D0466
D0467
D0467
D0467
D0468
D0468
D0469
D0469
D0469
D0469
D0470
D0470
D0470
D0470
D0470
D0470
D0470
Neodesha
Neodesha
Central
Central
Udall
Udall
Tonganoxie
Tonganoxie
Tonganoxie
Winfield
Winfield
Winfield
Winfield
Winfield
Winfield
Winfield
Winfield
Winfield
Scott County
Scott County
Scott County
Scott County
Leoti
Leoti
Leoti
Healy Public Schools
Healy Public Schools
Lansing
Lansing
Lansing
Lansing
Arkansas City
Arkansas City
Arkansas City
Arkansas City
Arkansas City
Arkansas City
Arkansas City
Building
Number School Name
7228
7232
7246
7254
7270
7272
7296
7297
7298
7310
7312
7314
7324
7326
7329
7330
7331
7332
7356
7358
7360
7362
7382
7383
7384
7402
7404
7420
7422
7426
7428
7440
7442
7443
7448
7454
7456
7458
North Lawn Elem
Neodesha High
Central Elem
Central Jr-Sr High
Udall Elem
Udall High & Junior High
Tonganoxie Elem
Tonganoxie Jr High
Tonganoxie High
Country View Elem
Pleasant Valley Elem
South Vernon Elem
Irving Elem
Lowell Elem
Webster Elem
Whittier Elem
Winfield Middle School
Winfield High
Scott City Lower Elem
Scott City Middle
Scott City High
Shallow Water Elem School
R B Stewart Elem
Wichita Co Jr High
Wichita Co High
Healy Elem
Healy High
Lansing Middle 6-8
Lansing Intermediate 4-5th
Lansing High 9-12
Lansing Elem K-3
Adams Elem
Frances Willard Elem
Jefferson Elem
Roosevelt Elem
Arkansas City Middle Sch
Arkansas City High
C 4 Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
174
394
237
207
193
132
697
395
372
153
70
51
264
239
117
320
663
877
314
269
350
147
221
112
160
43
63
522
296
669
463
270
190
260
270
680
911
116
180
415
425
326
350
450
700
400
400
180
100
60
380
360
120
320
790
1287
400
325
350
200
350
225
300
60
130
515
286
661
467
375
300
325
250
900
1200
150
1981
1987
1999
1972
1957
1956
1955
1988
1963
1961
1949
1955
1963
1957
1938
1954
1953
1974
1987
1960
1930
1963
1924
1926
1970
1938
1986
1997
1927
1988
1977
1954
1954
1957
1923
1967
1982
1963
Distict
Number District Name
D0470
D0471
D0471
D0473
D0473
D0473
D0473
D0473
D0473
D0473
D0474
D0474
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0475
D0476
D0476
D0477
D0477
D0479
D0479
D0479
D0480
Arkansas City
Dexter
Dexter
Chapman
Chapman
Chapman
Chapman
Chapman
Chapman
Chapman
Haviland
Haviland
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Geary County Schools
Copeland
Copeland
Ingalls
Ingalls
Crest
Crest
Crest
Liberal
Building
Number School Name
7466
7492
7494
7534
7540
7541
7542
7546
7552
7554
7574
7576
7592
7596
7598
7600
7602
7604
7606
7608
7610
7612
7614
7616
7618
7620
7624
7628
7630
7631
7648
7651
7664
7666
7692
7694
7696
7714
I X L Elem
Dexter Elem
Dexter High
Blue Ridge Elem
Chapman Elem
Chapman Middle School
Chapman High
Enterprise Elem
Rural Center Elem
Talmage Elem
Haviland Elem
Haviland High
Grandview Elem
Custer Hill Elem
Eisenhower Elem
Fort Riley Elem
Franklin Elem
Jefferson Elem
Lincoln Elem
Morris Hill Elem
Sheridan Elem
Washington Elem
Westwood Elem
Fort Riley Middle School
Junction City Middle School
Junction City Sr High
Milford Elem
K.S. Hauge Alt Ed Ctr
Ware Elem
Max O Heim Early Childhood Ed Ctr
Copeland Elem
South Gray Jr High
Ingalls Elem
Ingalls High
Crest West Elem
Crest High
Crest East Elem
Garfield Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
228
110
103
62
267
218
427
145
69
46
107
76
97
306
277
295
211
282
214
227
249
234
315
593
817
1382
87
22
789
49
50
77
204
98
63
108
125
333
275
125
145
145
350
350
600
150
110
50
240
160
127
367
410
277
242
306
268
365
310
436
375
713
824
1588
129
70
1008
177
200
100
200
120
78
224
259
300
1957
1971
1980
1960
1935
1963
1961
1953
1951
1930
1952
1922
1956
1963
1979
1952
1929
1960
1953
1957
1959
1929
1957
1963
1929
1957
1964
1981
1983
1991
1956
1920
1952
1972
1959
1959
1936
1957
Distict
Number District Name
D0480
D0480
D0480
D0480
D0480
D0480
D0480
D0480
D0480
D0481
D0481
D0481
D0481
D0482
D0482
D0482
D0483
D0483
D0483
D0484
D0484
D0484
D0486
D0486
D0487
D0487
D0487
D0488
D0488
D0488
D0488
D0489
D0489
D0489
D0489
D0489
D0489
D0489
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Rural Vista
Rural Vista
Rural Vista
Rural Vista
Dighton
Dighton
Dighton
Kismet-Plains
Kismet-Plains
Kismet-Plains
Fredonia
Fredonia
Fredonia
Elwood
Elwood
Herington
Herington
Herington
Axtell
Axtell
Axtell
Axtell
Hays
Hays
Hays
Hays
Hays
Hays
Hays
Building
Number School Name
7716
7718
7720
7722
7724
7726
7728
7730
7732
7750
7752
7758
7760
7778
7780
7782
7798
7800
7804
7832
7836
7838
7874
7876
7888
7890
7892
7912
7914
7916
7920
7942
7946
7948
7950
7952
7954
7956
Lincoln Elem
MacArthur Elem
McDermott Elem
McKinley Elem
Southlawn Elem
Washington Elem
Liberal South Middle
Liberal West Middle
Liberal Sr High
Hope Elem
Hope High
White City Elem
White City High
Dighton Elem
Lincoln Primary
Dighton High
Kismet Elem
Plains Elem
Southwestern Heights Jr/Sr High
Lincoln Elementary
Fredonia Middle
Fredonia Sr High
Elwood Elem
Elwood High
Herington Elem
Herington Middle Sch
Herington High
Axtell High
Bern Elem
Bern High
Summerfield Elem
Kennedy Middle
Lincoln Elem
Washington Elem
Woodrow Wilson Elem
Felten Middle
Hays High
Kathryn O'Loughlin McCarthy Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
244
277
300
280
511
258
474
483
1118
144
69
142
70
123
103
124
214
212
347
396
221
316
214
87
242
143
197
123
70
88
70
388
211
132
317
530
1141
322
300
330
350
380
425
410
610
660
1400
320
320
250
200
250
230
235
375
455
275
390
275
235
400
200
300
150
140
125
150
436
227
170
321
512
1048
340
1958
1964
1929
1934
1955
1953
1965
1961
1983
1921
1921
1923
1958
1928
1960
1936
1952
1960
1965
1907
1956
1990
1977
1952
1954
1996
1965
1942
1971
1951
1955
1949
1925
1926
1959
1964
1981
1960
Distict
Number District Name
D0489
D0489
D0490
D0490
D0490
D0490
D0490
D0490
D0490
D0491
D0491
D0491
D0491
D0492
D0492
D0492
D0493
D0493
D0493
D0493
D0493
D0493
D0493
D0494
D0494
D0495
D0495
D0495
D0495
D0495
D0495
D0495
D0496
D0496
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
Hays
Hays
El Dorado
El Dorado
El Dorado
El Dorado
El Dorado
El Dorado
El Dorado
Eudora
Eudora
Eudora
Eudora
Flinthills
Flinthills
Flinthills
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Syracuse
Syracuse
Ft Larned
Ft Larned
Ft Larned
Ft Larned
Ft Larned
Ft Larned
Ft Larned
Pawnee Heights
Pawnee Heights
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Building
Number School Name
7958
7959
7990
7992
7994
7996
7998
8000
8002
8023
8025
8028
8029
8038
8046
8048
8064
8066
8068
8070
8073
8086
8090
8110
8114
8132
8134
8138
8140
8142
8146
8147
8166
8170
8186
8189
8190
8191
Munjor Elem
Roosevelt Elem
Grandview Elem
Jefferson Elem
Lincoln Elem
Skelly Elem
Washington Elem
El Dorado Middle
El Dorado High
Eudora High School
Nottingham Elem School
Eudora West Elem School
Eudora Middle School
Flinthills Primary School
Flinthills Intermediate School
Flinthills Middle School-High School
Highland Elem
Park Elem
Central Elem
Columbus High
Greenlawn Elem
Scammon Elem
Spencer Elem
Syracuse Elem
Syracuse High
Hillside Elem
Northside Elem
Phinney Elem
Larned Middle School
Larned Sr High
Pawnee Rock Elem
Pawnee Rock Middle
Pawnee Heights West
Pawnee Heights High
Grant Elem
Sunflower Elementary
Prairie Park Elem
Broken Arrow Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
20
376
213
206
211
196
227
538
599
341
368
285
183
49
109
180
120
157
445
446
71
108
68
279
256
118
154
116
249
340
56
34
103
63
65
517
416
253
60
378
260
300
300
300
300
650
750
350
400
300
220
80
180
180
160
150
450
500
100
140
140
325
440
150
200
150
450
400
150
125
150
120
96
528
525
312
1962
1967
1954
1954
1953
1952
1955
1937
1968
1995
1966
1994
1949
1951
1981
1967
1937
1957
1957
1961
1968
1970
1960
1960
1950
1955
1962
1951
1995
1953
1956
1956
1920
1949
1962
1994
1994
1968
Distict
Number District Name
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0497
D0498
D0498
D0498
D0499
D0499
D0499
D0499
D0499
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawrence
Valley Heights
Valley Heights
Valley Heights
Galena
Galena
Galena
Galena
Galena
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Building
Number School Name
8192
8194
8195
8196
8198
8200
8202
8204
8206
8208
8210
8212
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8220
8222
8224
8238
8246
8252
8264
8268
8270
8272
8274
8279
8282
8284
8285
8287
8288
8290
8292
8293
8297
Centennial Elem
Cordley Elem
Deerfield Elem
East Heights Elem
Hillcrest Elem
Kennedy Elem
Quail Run Elementary
New York Elem
Pinckney Elem
Schwegler Elem
Sunset Hill Elem
Woodlawn Elem
Lawrence Central Jr Hi
Lawrence South Jr Hi
Lawrence West Jr Hi
Southwest Jr High
Lawrence High
Riverside Elem
Wakarusa Valley Elem
Lawrence Free State High
Valley Heights Elem
Valley Heights Elem
Valley Heights Jr/Sr High
Liberty Elem
Spring Grove Primary Center
Galena Middle School
Cornerstone High
Galena High
Banneker Elem
Silver City Elem
Chelsea Elem
Douglass Elem
Thomas A Edison Elem
Emerson Elem
John Fiske Elem
Grant Elem
Hawthorne Elem
Fairfax Learning Center
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
230
221
506
214
362
361
626
134
264
502
345
170
529
673
610
630
1262
137
272
1172
126
104
257
180
185
198
25
219
488
175
199
249
206
274
471
309
353
42
328
391
552
220
384
483
552
242
336
552
288
350
567
587
520
567
1400
120
264
1400
180
180
350
175
200
175
40
225
578
278
626
411
256
292
351
358
658
135
1955
1915
1968
1954
1953
1960
1987
1937
1931
1957
1955
1924
1923
1968
1961
1995
1954
1955
1960
1997
1972
1958
1972
1941
1939
1941
1993
1964
1972
1970
1923
1963
1954
1960
1984
1956
1909
1972
Distict
Number District Name
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0500
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Building
Number School Name
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
8298
8302
8303
8305
8307
8308
8309
8311
8312
8313
8315
8316
8317
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8340
8342
8346
8348
8350
8352
8354
8358
8442
8444
8446
8452
Mark Twain Elem
Parker Elem
Noble Prentis Elem
Quindaro Elem
Roosevelt Elem
Frank Rushton Elem
New Stanley Elem
Eugene Ware Elem
Wm A White Elem
Whittier Elem
Frances Willard Elem
Central Middle
Northwest Middle
West Middle
Argentine Middle
Rosedale Middle
Sumner Academy of Arts & Science
Wyandotte High
Arrowhead Middle
Bethel Elem
J C Harmon High
Coronado Middle
F L Schlagle High
Claude A Huyck Elem
D D Eisenhower Middle
Hazel Grove Elem
John F Kennedy Elem
Lindbergh Elem
Stony Point South
Stony Point North
Washington High
Welborn Elem
White Church Elem
M E Pearson Elem
Avondale East Elem
Shaner Elem
Avondale West Elem
Chase Middle School
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
175
150
292
418
175
463
355
310
268
709
342
712
553
429
555
500
946
1187
487
264
1190
431
1067
292
722
464
482
219
405
375
1185
527
297
695
239
180
166
497
228
258
376
611
251
424
367
273
287
725
272
988
983
752
1142
1090
999
2041
609
239
1697
645
1386
256
1031
469
514
286
488
404
1531
589
294
700
330
285
255
600
1923
1915
1954
1972
1923
1956
1913
1949
1959
1991
1955
1915
1923
1955
1930
1926
1939
1935
1961
1956
1973
1961
1973
1965
1973
1933
1965
1950
1972
1958
1931
1914
1924
1977
1954
1957
1954
1979
Distict
Number District Name
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0501
D0502
D0502
D0503
D0503
D0503
D0503
D0503
D0504
D0504
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Topeka Public
Lewis
Lewis
Parsons
Parsons
Parsons
Parsons
Parsons
Oswego
Oswego
Building
Number School Name
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
Schools
8462
8465
8471
8472
8474
8478
8480
8482
8484
8486
8494
8496
8498
8499
8501
8504
8506
8512
8513
8516
8524
8530
8532
8533
8536
8538
8540
8541
8552
8580
8582
8586
8587
8588
8594
8596
8620
8622
Highland Park Central
Ross Elementary
Linn Elem
Lowman Hill Elem
Lundgren Elem
Maude Bishop Elem
McCarter Elem
McClure Elem
McEachron Elem
Meadows Elementary
Quincy Elem
Quinton Heights Elem
Randolph Elem
Scott Computer Technology Magnet
Robinson Middle School
State Street Elem
Stout Elem
Whitson Elem
Williams Science and Fine Arts Magnet Sc
Topeka Education Center
Eisenhower Middle School
Jardine Middle School
Landon Middle School
Marjorie French Middle School
Highland Park High
Topeka High
Topeka West High
Parkdale Preschool Center
Capital City
Lewis Elem
Lewis High
Garfield Elem
Guthridge Elem
Lincoln Elem
Parsons Middle School
Parsons Sr High
Oswego Middle
Oswego Neosho Hgts Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
323
270
175
346
218
293
332
319
297
606
244
177
400
534
511
294
216
403
581
71
466
517
446
590
955
2119
1209
46
157
89
100
241
274
265
414
530
98
199
425
355
280
400
255
350
385
270
305
600
355
260
510
600
600
325
325
375
600
219
600
600
550
600
1500
2100
1600
70
165
120
120
300
300
300
600
600
120
250
1966
1955
1964
1958
1949
1965
1957
1962
1959
1996
1962
1953
1926
1996
1969
1939
1955
1951
1996
1999
1960
1960
1963
1970
1950
1931
1961
1962
1997
1910
1914
1954
1972
1971
1924
1954
1921
1968
Distict
Number District Name
D0504
D0504
D0505
D0505
D0506
D0506
D0506
D0506
D0506
D0506
D0507
D0507
D0508
D0508
D0508
D0508
D0509
D0509
D0511
D0511
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
Oswego
Oswego
Chetopa
Chetopa
Labette County
Labette County
Labette County
Labette County
Labette County
Labette County
Satanta
Satanta
Baxter Springs
Baxter Springs
Baxter Springs
Baxter Springs
South Haven
South Haven
Attica
Attica
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Shawnee Mission
Building
Number School Name
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
8623
8624
8636
8638
8652
8654
8658
8666
8680
8684
8694
8696
8702
8704
8708
8710
8742
8744
8762
8764
8774
8775
8776
8778
8782
8784
8786
8787
8788
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8796
8798
8804
8806
Service Valley Elem
Oswego High
Chetopa Elem
Chetopa High
Altamont Elem
Labette County High School
Bartlett Elem
Edna Elem
Meadowview Elem
Mound Valley Elem
Satanta Elem
Satanta Jr-Sr High
Central Elem
Lincoln Elem
Baxter Springs Middle
Baxter Springs High
South Haven Elem
South Haven High
Puls Elem
Attica High
East Antioch Elem
West Antioch Elem
Apache Elem
Arrowhead Elem
Belinder Elem
Bluejacket-Flint
Briarwood Elem
Broken Arrow Elem
Brookridge Elem
Brookwood Elem
Christa McAuliffe Elem
Cherokee Elem
Comanche Elem
Corinth Elem
Crestview Elem
Dorothy Moody Elem
Hickory Grove AEP
Highlands Elem
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
101
47
156
120
240
634
129
210
387
205
242
202
192
209
216
264
197
78
95
51
352
212
329
178
417
583
528
645
499
417
611
292
415
343
318
312
158
324
110
200
200
220
225
700
190
225
430
200
300
250
300
300
400
400
225
100
180
250
365
275
400
250
450
750
575
675
600
450
550
390
550
550
425
475
250
275
1956
1994
1976
1976
1933
1940
1951
1970
1959
1921
1961
1979
1950
1957
1918
1975
1955
1955
1955
1982
1958
1970
1958
1956
1952
1996
1959
1990
1967
1960
1987
1955
1969
1936
1954
1966
1916
1951
Distict
Number District Name
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
D0512
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Shawnee
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Mission
Building
Number School Name
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Pub
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
Sch
8808
8810
8812
8814
8816
8817
8819
8820
8822
8823
8826
8828
8832
8834
8836
8838
8840
8842
8844
8846
8854
8856
8857
8858
8860
8864
8868
8870
8874
8876
8878
8880
8884
8886
8888
8890
8892
8894
John Diemer Elem
Katherine Carpenter Elem
Shawanoe Elem
Bonjour Elem
Ray Marsh Elem
Merriam Elem
Mill Creek Elem
Nall Hills Elem
Nieman Elem
Oak Park Elem
Overland Park Elem
Pawnee Elem
Prairie Elem
Rhein Benninghoven Elem
Rising Star Elem
Roesland Elem
Roeland Park Elem
Rosehill Elem
Rushton Elem
Santa Fe Trail Elem
Somerset Elem
South Park Elem
Sunflower Elem
Tomahawk Elem
Trailwood Elem
Westwood View Elem
Westridge Middle
Hocker Grove Middle
Indian Hills Middle
Mission Valley Middle
Antioch Middle
Indian Woods Middle
Trailridge Middle
Shawnee Mission East High
Shawnee Mission North High
Shawnee Mission Northwest High
Shawnee Mission South High
Shawnee Mission West High
Year
Enrollment Capacity Built
261
255
398
327
364
193
500
273
361
275
319
351
490
605
505
357
190
600
339
313
301
263
616
382
258
303
986
597
623
713
527
880
696
2023
1923
2132
1841
1923
325
330
550
575
375
265
600
275
440
500
550
365
550
625
800
400
200
725
425
455
375
375
780
425
375
380
1175
800
900
885
770
965
900
2190
2175
2325
2425
2325
1964
1962
1960
1954
1969
1969
1978
1961
1954
1974
1998
1965
1936
1966
1991
1926
1951
1966
1954
1953
1953
1947
1995
1954
1962
1968
1962
1955
1955
1958
1955
1961
1967
1958
1921
1969
1966
1962
APPENDIX V
SELF REPORTED CONDITION OF BUILDINGS FOR THE 90 DISTRICTS
THAT WERE ASKED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
District
CHEYLIN
WHITE ROCK
TURNER-KANSAS CITY
BONNER SPRINGS
WAKEENEY
MOSCOW PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HUGOTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
NORTHERN VALLEY
WEST SOLOMON VALLEY SCH
DEERFIELD
ROLLA
ELKHART
NORTH CENTRAL
WASHINGTON SCHOOLS
BARNES
CLIFTON-CLYDE
FOWLER
JETMORE
HANSTON
WESKAN
LEROY-GRIDLEY
SOUTH BARBER
OAKLEY
TRIPLAINS
MANKATO
JEWELL
District
Number
D0103
D0104
D0202
D0204
D0208
D0209
D0210
D0212
D0213
D0216
D0217
D0218
D0221
D0222
D0223
D0224
D0225
D0227
D0228
D0242
D0245
D0255
D0274
D0275
D0278
D0279
Condition of Buildings
# of
%
Buildings Excellent % Good
% Fair
% Poor
2
3
10
4
2
3
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
4
2
4
2
2
2
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
50%
0%
33%
50%
0%
0%
33%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
0%
66%
50%
0%
100%
67%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
25%
50%
0%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
50%
25%
0%
75%
50%
100%
100%
0%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
25%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5
3
4
1
2
2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
100%
33%
100%
0%
100%
50%
0%
66%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
District
WEST GRAHAM-MORLAND
HILL CITY
ELK VALLEY
CHASE COUNTY
CEDAR VALE
QUINTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
OBERLIN
PRAIRIE HEIGHTS
ST FRANCIS COMM SCH
NES TRE LA GO
SMOKY HILL
NESS CITY
BAZINE
NICKERSON
BREWSTER
HERNDON
ATWOOD
EASTERN HEIGHTS
PHILLIPSBURG
SOUTHERN CLOUD
PLEASANTON
KINSLEY-OFFERLE
STAFFORD
WELLINGTON
CONWAY SPRINGS
BELLE PLAINE
OXFORD
ARGONIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CALDWELL
MARYSVILLE
BURRTON
MONTEZUMA
District
Number
D0280
D0281
D0283
D0284
D0285
D0293
D0294
D0295
D0297
D0301
D0302
D0303
D0304
D0309
D0314
D0317
D0318
D0324
D0325
D0334
D0344
D0347
D0349
D0353
D0356
D0357
D0358
D0359
D0360
D0364
D0369
D0371
Condition of Buildings
# of
%
Buildings Excellent % Good
% Fair
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
5
2
1
2
2
3
4
1
4
3
7
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
33%
0%
33%
0%
0%
0%
50%
33%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
50%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
75%
100%
25%
0%
0%
33%
100%
33%
0%
0%
33%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
25%
0%
75%
0%
71%
33%
0%
0%
100%
0%
66%
0%
66%
% Poor
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
29%
0%
0%
33%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
District
CIRCLE
STERLING
SPEARVILLE
MADISON-VIRGIL
Ellis
CHASE-RAYMOND
OTIS-BISON
LYONS
WATHENA
HOXIE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
LYNDON
GREENSBURG
PIKE VALLEY
REPUBLIC COUNTY
TROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
VICTORIA
LITTLE RIVER
HILLCREST RURAL SCHOOLS
NEODESHA
UDALL
WINFIELD
CHAPMAN
RURAL VISTA
DIGHTON
AXTELL
FLINTHILLS
PAWNEE HEIGHTS
LEWIS
CHETOPA
SATANTA
SOUTH HAVEN
ATTICA
District
Number
D0375
D0376
D0381
D0386
D0388
D0401
D0403
D0405
D0406
D0412
D0421
D0422
D0426
D0427
D0429
D0432
D0444
D0455
D0461
D0463
D0465
D0473
D0481
D0482
D0488
D0492
D0496
D0502
D0505
D0507
D0509
D0511
Condition of Buildings
# of
%
Buildings Excellent % Good
% Fair
4
3
3
2
2
6
3
5
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
3
2
1
3
2
9
7
2
4
4
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
0%
33%
0%
100%
50%
66%
0%
0%
66%
0%
0%
0%
25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
75%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
25%
66%
33%
0%
50%
33%
33%
0%
33%
100%
50%
0%
50%
100%
33%
66%
100%
100%
66%
100%
44%
71%
100%
25%
0%
0%
33%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
50%
0%
66%
0%
0%
0%
33%
80%
0%
0%
50%
100%
25%
0%
66%
33%
0%
0%
33%
0%
22%
29%
0%
0%
50%
100%
33%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
% Poor
25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
20%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
0%
0%
0%
50%
0%
33%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%