A Study of the Extent to which Further Consolidation is Feasible and Desirable Within Selected County School Districts in Utah


Book Description

Under the mandatory consolidation act of 1915, the county-unit school district in Utah had its beginning (10). Although, through this consolidation movement, many small school districts were combined into larger ones, the elimination of the small districts did not, necessarily, provide for the elimination of the small schools. Due to several factors including distance, poor communication and transportation facilities, and a strong desire on the part of the people who lived in small communities for a voice in school matters, the consolidation of school attendance areas did not keep pace with school district reorganization. With the improvement of highways and communication facilities and the rapid rise of the motor vehicle as a means of fast, dependable travel, school boards have considered consolidation of attendance areas as one of the possibilities open to them to improve the quality of education in their districts.



















Resistence [i.e. Resistance] to Cache County School Consolidation


Book Description

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, educational reformers championed the closing of one-room schools and transporting children from those schools to a larger modern school. This movement, often referred to as consolidation, also meant the merger of a number of school districts into one administrative body. In 1908, Cache County commissioners abolished the twenty-five school districts throughout Cache County, Utah to form one consolidated school district, following the national trend toward consolidation. While the commission passed consolidation by a unanimous vote, many Cache County residents opposed the measure. On April 1, 1908, the opponents of consolidation formed the Anti-Consolidation Society. They petitioned the Cache County Commission and filed a lawsuit against the county.... In Cache County, an underlying tension between progressive changes and traditional community values, rather than any religious or political difference, was at the heart of opposition to consolidation.