Reorganization Period (1957 - 1966)

The Pennsylvania Education Reorganization Period

Editor's Note: The most valuable documents you’ll find in this period are the several Committee on Education reports, interim reports, and research findings. These documents summarize the need for reorganization in detail not covered here. They also include original scans of proposed county teacher salaries. These documents were and are invaluable to the research on this period.

Types of Mergers

Unions (1911 - 1923)

In an effort to encourage existing school districts to merge within the commonwealth, two methods were provided by the legislature. The Act of May 18, 1911 P. L. 309 created the process for unions as a way to consolidate two or more adjoining districts. Member districts within the union would merge to form a single district with a single board and single tax revenue strategy.^[15] Ten years after the introduction of unions, not a single district within the commonwealth had done so. It was not until Act 369 of 1921 amended the procedure for unionization that began the public interest to form union districts. Under this act, the requirements for a union are as follows:

a. Each of the districts desiring to form a union school district shall present a petition to the county commissioners, signed by at least one-fourth of the whole number of taxable residents in such districts.

b. The County Commissioners shall take no action until they have submitted the petitions to the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Superintendent has approved.

c. If approved, the Commissioners shall then submit the question to the electors of the respective districts at the next general election. (Later amended to permit other periods).

d. If a majority of the voters of each district voting favor formation of the union, a certificate of the return shall be filed with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and with the Clerkof the Court of Quarter Sessions of the county.

While these amendments reduced the ambiguity with unionization, the first union school district would not become effective until 1923, when “Honesdale Borough and Texas Township in Wayne County become the Honesdale Union District.”^[15]

Jointures (1937)

“Jointures” were a seldom used consolidation method for schools introduced in 1854, allowing schools to function as one cohesive unit while maintaining their own identity. They became popular after the passing of Act 631 in 1947 which provided financial incentives for districts to consolidate. Under this act, joint high schools would receive financial benefits in 1949 and elementary schools in 1951.

Under a jointure, a joint school board would be composed of members from each district’s existing board. Perhaps the most motivating factor for a jointure, each district retains its own budget and funding stream through its own managed tax system. In order to fund the jointure, it was common for each member district to allocate funds based on the proportion of students from their district. Up until this point, consolidation of school districts was almost entirely voluntary, notwithstanding forced consolidation due to changes in municipality existence.^[15]

County School Boards (1937)

By the Act of May 13, 1937, P. L. 605 a county board of school directors was created in each county under the supervision of a county superintendent. The chief responsibilities of the superintendent was to recommend and secure contracts for transportation for pupils to their respective schools and to provide local guidance (as well as approval/disapproval) of new school sites as proposed by the State Council of Education.^[15]

Among the powers of the superintendents was the requirement to devise plans to merge low population districts into larger districts, with a cap on the number of pupils per school to restrict the ability of the superintendent to small (typically rural) schools.

These school boards again became significant during this reorganization period as they would be tasked with creating the county-wide reorganization plans for all districts in 1962 - 1963, after which they would be abolished.

Jointure, Union, and Merger Impact (1960)

By 1960, almost 88% of districts that had entered jointures ratified further agreements covering education for grades 1 - 12.

Noticing the positive impact on reorganization by means of financial incentives through the 1950’s, the 1955 legislature passed Act 650. The act mandated a study by the State Council of Education "to prepare a state-wide plan for the reorganization of counties or parts thereof into intermediate units"^[15] of school administration. The study and its findings were made to the General Assembly in 1957 and appeared as senate bill 525, but the bill died in committee.^[15]

The Committee on Education (1960 - 1961)

Editor’s Note: This was perhaps the most difficult document to obtain from this entire project. The report is commonly cited, but no digital scans exist on the internet nor in any academic journal collections. This was one of several documents obtained by visiting the Pennsylvania State Archives in Harrisburg. After several hours of digging through boxes, I found a pristine, stapled, and complete final report. I was also able to obtain interim reports (their drafts), their research reports, sources, and other supporting documents. They’re all linked at the bottom of this section. This document is responsible for the education system we know today. If you have the time, I recommend reading it in full.

Between 1940 and 1958, Pennsylvania state spending on education of public schools more than doubled from 16.7% of total state expenditures to 35.9%.

In 1960, Governor David L. Lawrence assembled a 29 person committee, titled “The Governor’s Committee on Education”, to study the state’s aging education system and produce a series of legislative recommendations in an effort to overhaul it. No guarantee was made that the state’s General Assembly would heed the recommendations, but rather the report was designed to encourage the assembly to act, armed with a series of recommendations backed by auditable scientific information. The committee worked for under a year to consult with federal, state and local educators, administrators, representatives, and legislators.^[15] In April 1961, they submitted and published their final report, “The Final Report of the Committee on Education” which outlines their recommendations on curriculum, organization, funding, construction, and others.

The report operated under several basic principles:

1. The administration of school districts should continue to be done at the local level by independent school boards (with the power granted in the “Free School Act of 1834”). As such, the state must continue to influence, regulate, and encourage the proper development of these local units through legislation.

2. Every student, regardless of income, must be available to every child in the commonwealth. Districts with lower local wealth must receive higher subsidy and financial assistance from the state to achieve equity in educational opportunity.

3. The funding for schools shall be a combination of state and local sources, not a sole responsibility for any individual party.

4. Finally, “The Commonwealth should accept responsibility for providing up to four years of higher education for all qualified students who might not otherwise attend a college or university.”

While the report focused on several topics, of most interest in the context of this research project is the committee’s proposals on school organization. In their report, an entire section is dedicated to the history of organization and the disservice it has brought to the education opportunities of their pupils. The committee builds the foundation for their claim:

The genuine progress of Pennsylvania education depends on efficient school district reorganization. Every educator of authority who testified before the Committee said this. County superintendents said it. Teachers said it. School directors said it. The United States Office of Education says it. The Conant report says it. The Report of the Committee on Economic Development says it. President Eisenhower's Committee on National Goals said it. The Governor's Committee on Education says it, reiterates it, capitalizes and underlines it. Without new and larger school districts, all of the higher teachers' salaries, curriculum minimums and special education programs here offered are as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.

There had been, up until this point, no legislative mandates for school consolidation or reorganization with the intent to increase the size of the district. Local identities were revered and so too was their ability to operate autonomously, especially in education. However, the committee found that larger school districts simply offered better and cheaper education to the pupil:

Here is the first and most important general fact about school district organization: the larger the school system, the more comprehensive the program… As the size of the high school diminishes, so does the wealth of course offerings. And as the course offering narrows, so does the pupil's success in entering college. High schools with senior classes of fewer than 50 students sent only 16 percent of their 1959 graduates to college; those with 50 to 99 students sent 23 percent. And the percentage climbs in the high schools with a senior class of 200 or more. These sent 31 percent of their 1959 graduates to College… The overwhelming case for larger school districts is that they offer a richer program of education more efficiently. They offer more education for the dollar. They simply offer more education.

The committee went on to address the state’s current subsidies of smaller districts under the guise of equality, “They have subsidized inefficiency as much as program improvement.”^[25] By continuing to subsidize smaller districts, the committee argues, the state becomes complicit in knowingly providing a suboptimal education to those students which reduces their education equity with their peers across the state.

Almost 80 percent of our districts have entered jointure. This rush, almost a stampede in the 1950's, demonstrates clearly that the majority of administrators and directors see the need for larger administrative units. Jointure was in most cases only a first step, but a step in the right direction.

The lesson is plain. There can be no true reorganization of school districts unless it is mandated by the state. The choice is simple. Either we mandate reorganization or we do not reorganize… Reorganization will not decrease local autonomy in school matters. A small, weak district, having a weak curriculum and inadequate teachers' pay, can be called autonomous in name only.

The minimum size of school districts should henceforth be 5,000 pupils, except in a few sparsely settled areas.

The final report recommended a maximum of 172 school districts across the state. As of 2024, Pennsylvania has exactly 500 school districts.

Committee on Education Documents

• Committee on Education Research Report 7/6/1960 - Committee’s findings and research specifically on school reorganization. The final report has a significantly condensed reading of the information within this report. This also contains a thorough historical history of school reorganization within the state.
• Committee on Education Research Report 7/26/1960 - A continuation of the second research report, further developing the recommendations on school reorganization.
• Committee on Education Interim Report 9/8/1960 - These are the direct legislative recommendations the committee will make to the general assembly on the terms and requirements for reorganization. It’s these recommendations you’ll find in Act 561.
• Committee on Education Condensed Reorganization Plan 12/23/1960 - A condensed version of the organization research findings and recommendations.
• Committee on Education Final Report April 1961 - The final report of the Committee on Education, as submitted to the governor.
• Committee on Education Legislative Recommendations February 1963 - Direct legislative recommendations from the findings of the committee's report.

Act 561 (1961)

Act 561 was signed into law by governor David L Lawrence on September 12, 1961. It repealed sections 261 (Standards and Regulations; Approval of Plans.) and 262 (County-Wide Plans for Merger) of the Public School Code of 1949. Both repealed sections are found on page 72 of the Act 561 PDF.

The most notable inclusions of the law were sections 282, 285, and 286:

Section 282 requires each county board of school directors, before January 1, 1963, to prepare and submit to the Department of Public Instruction a plan of organization of administrative units conforming to the approved standards. No plan may violate any jointure agreement unless the agreement is amended to provide for discontinuance of the jointure, at the time the proposed administrative unit is deemed established as a school district.

Section 285 provides that the Department of Public Instruction will prepare the plan In any case where a county plan is not approved prior to January 1, 1964.

Section 286 provides that on July 1, 1965 all administrative units contained in plans approved by the State Council shall constitute and be deemed established as school districts of the class to which they are entitled by law.

Together, these sections created the legal enforcement of school district reorganization across the state. Importantly, it mandated the consolidation of administrative districts, but not physical consolidation of the schools within the newly created districts. This is perhaps most telling of the intent of the plan, to provide more advanced education by consolidation as detailed by the committee’s plan. While it included some financial motivation, the primary focus was in stark contrast to later reorganization plans through the 2000’s aimed at financial savings over educational advancements.

Rather than having the state bureaus draft proposals, the onus was placed on each county’s board of school directors, who at the time managed all classes of schools within their territory to varying degrees. Anticipating the eventual uproar over forced consolidation, Section 285 granted power to the (now former) Department of Public Instruction to create proposals for any counties who had not produced a proposal and/or did not receive approval by January 1, 1964. Section 286 represented the desired completion date of reorganizations, July 1, 1965. On this date, any approved proposals would become a finalized school district, whether it was the plan of the county or relinquished to the state.

The act also prevented existing school districts from being broken apart by reorganization and existing jointure agreements could not be nullified without the approval of each jointure member.

One shortcoming of Act 561, which is later relevant for Chartiers Valley, was the law provided no explicit means of appeals for the county’s board of school directors, let alone the schools of which would be forced to reorganize. Although a county’s board would be able to amend any rejections provided by the state upon submission of the plan, it effectively left each school district without say in their future. Perhaps more prominent than today, school districts at the time represented pronounced ideological, political, and geological boundaries.

A notable example of contention by adjoining districts was an opinion filed by Fox Chapel that dissented with a future reorganization proposal to join them with Sharpsburg Borough:

The objection to Sharpsburg Borough with its 1,600 pupils is that it is of a different type of people and their philosophy of education is not sufficiently advanced for them to accept the more advance education ideas in the Fox Chapel Area.

Governor David L. Lawrence’s term would conclude in 1963, two years after the bill was enacted and two years before the reorganization period would conclude. This left a crucial period of enforcement outside of Governor Lawrence’s term, requiring the incoming governor and legislature to uphold the ambitious plan.

The outrage of forced reorganization spread like wildfire across the state, so much so becoming a determining factor in the upcoming gubernatorial election. It also led to the Republican Party taking control of the state legislature, promising to claw back the law.^[28]

In the meantime, county boards got to work drafting reorganization plans in preparation for the January 1, 1963 deadline. This afforded the boards a little under two years to compile a plan and have it approved. From that deadline, the state would have one full year to review and approve plans with county boards afforded time for amendments.

Governor William W. Scranton would win the following election, leading to modifications of Act 561 via future Act 299. Upon taking office, Governor Scranton would postpone the plan deadline while his administration and the legislature worked to craft an amended reorganization bill.

Act 299 (1963)

Editor's Note: This period is when the claws really came out between school districts amid the forced reorganization. Several districts submitted official correspondence to their local boards and state boards containing racial stereotypes and other defamatory statements. At the time, these documents were not published. However, they are and continue to be found in the archives of this time period. They are published here without redaction.

Act 299, known as the “School District Reorganization Act of 1963”, was a bill signed into law by governor William S. Scranton on August 8, 1963 that repealed portions of and built upon Act 561 to finalize the state’s plan for forced district reorganization.

Scranton strongly opposed Act 561, using it as a top campaign point in the gubernatorial election. Scranton is quoted calling Act 561 “weak”, and sought Act 299 that “preserves the principle of reorganization, while eliminating the weaknesses that wrecked Act 561.”^[28]

Act 299 extended the county board reorganization plan submission deadline from January 1, 1963 (as introduced in Act 561) to July 1, 1964. Under this provision, any decisions taken on previously submitted plans would be nullified, requiring counties to resubmit the same or amended plan.^[29] There was ambiguity in Act 561’s implementation on the administrative governance for districts currently undergoing reorganization, as well as confusion around how existing debt would be handled.

A major remedy added to Act 299 provided an appeals process for districts who previously had no legal remedy to county board plans. This appeals process would later be the deciding factor in the 1964 Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case brought by Chartiers Valley. Within 30 days of the county’s plan being approved by the Council of Basic Education, a school could file an appeal for review by the council itself. Rather than appealing to the county who drafted the proposal, the council would make the ultimate decision in the matter. Oftentimes this led to the council requiring the county to re-draft the proposal with included changes as a result of the appeal.

This began a period of legal appeals by the Chartiers Valley Joint School District. This is covered in full in the appeals section.

Prior to the reorganization laws in 1961 and later amended by 1963, the number of school districts within the state were reduced from 2,227 to 669 by 1970.^[28] The resulting 669 districts were far more numerous than the original final 172 that the Governor's Committee on Education had proposed. Despite this, the reorganization effort was considered a success.

Found in an Act 299 progress update on December 31, 1964, Allegheny County was reported to have ongoing appeal hearings.^[30]

Allegheny County Reorganization Plan (1952 - 1965)

Acts 561 of 1961 and 299 of 1963 were the first laws that mandated consolidation of school districts into administrative units. However, Allegheny County can be found to have been creating proposals for administrative units as far back as 1952.

In 1952, Allegheny County produced a reorganization plan that proposes the creation of administrative unit 21 that consists of:

• Carnegie Borough
• Collier Township
• Scott Township
• Borough of Heidelberg
• Bridgeville Borough
• South Fayette Township

One comment on the reorganization plan read “It may be advisable to divide this school district--one part for Area VIII, one part for Area IX, Unit 21”^[34]

August 1953, Allegheny County Board of School Directors submits recommendation to the State Council on Education that the administrative unit contain only Bridgeville, Collier, Greentree, Heidelberg, and Scott.^[14] The State Council on Education approves this proposal in August 1954.

August 9, 1954, Allegheny County Board of School Directors sends a letter to the Bureau of Public Instruction recommending they exclude plans with district superintendent from any county-wide reorganization and merger plans.^[35] While we’re unable to locate any response or outcome documentation, this was likely ignored by the bureau. At this time, there was no legislation mandating the reorganization of districts, only ones providing financial incentive to do so.

December 19, 1955, the president of the Carnegie Borough School District Board, James Firth, attended the Allegheny County Board of School Directors meeting.^[14] During this session, Carnegie Borough asked the county board to intervene in its inability to secure jointures with adjoining districts. The county board recommends Carnegie attempt to reach out to the districts again, otherwise they can authorize the county board to act on their behalf in negotiating.^[15] This is the first official entry we have where Greentree’s opinion on jointure is presented, “Greentree doesn’t want to go into jointure at the present time.”^[14]

January 1, 1957, the Chartiers Valley Joint Schools can be found moved to administrative unit 14, which removes Carnegie and South Fayette, but introduces Greentree Borough.^[36]

June 1, 1957’s revised reorganization plan is the same as that proposed in January, but proposes the administrative unit to have 10 elementary centers, 1 junior high school, 1 senior high school, and 1 junior-senior high school.^[37] This appears to be a proposal of what physical school building reorganization would occur, rather than a summation of what buildings would be included in a purely administrative reorganization. At the time, Scott Township and Bridgeville each had their own high schools which would result in a minimum of 2 senior high schools if the proposal were to provide a summation. Therefore, it stands to reason that this pre-act 561/299 proposal was the county attempting to perform administrative and physical reorganization of schools before being mandated. It’s unclear if the impetus was purely the financial incentives provided by former laws. The Governor's Committee on Education would not produce a report or recommendations until the 1960s.

In 1957 after multiple refusals to be a non independent administrative unit and failing to join several jointure agreements with several districts, Carnegie Borough was without a jointure to join and the county began to devise plans to assign it to another administrative unit. When presented with options to join neighboring schools not in existing jointures, Carnegie Borough stated “that participation in Chartiers Valley Joint Board was preferable.”^[14] Obviously, the Chartiers Valley Joint Schools were not interested in the prospect of operating with Carnegie Borough. This began with their refusal to accept Carnegie into the jointure, and would later escalate as county plans continued to be revised. Carnegie would then proceed to petition the county twice to be their own administrative unit and were rejected.^[14]

August 20, 1958’s revised organization plan re-introduces Carnegie Borough to administrative district 14. This brings the proposed buildings to 16 elementary centers, 3 junior high schools, and 2 senior high schools.^[38] This again appears to reinforce our belief that the physical reorganization was a proposal, as there would have been 3 senior high schools between Scott Township, Bridgeville Borough, and Carnegie Borough alone.

In September 1959, the County Board of School Directors “considered the Chartiers Valley Jointure to be sufficiently stable to recommend inclusion of Carnegie.”^[14] The board would proceed to finalize the plan and submit to the State Council of Education for approval. After this time, Carnegie Borough is clear to have submitted formal grievances with the plan, although we’re unable to find an official record of these.

On October 21, 1959 the State Council of Education defers Allegheny County Board of School Directors proposal for including Carnegie Borough in administrative unit 14.^[39] The report states that Carnegie Borough is the party dissatisfied with the proposal. According to the borough, it prefers to be its own administrative unit or join with Thornburgh and Rosslyn Farms borough. Carnegie Borough did not meet the classifications for a class one school district which would naturally comprise one administrative unit, let alone class 3. Their proposal to be independent is as puzzling as it is comical. Referencing the county plans, there is no other school district of non-union status who was granted independent administrative status.^[38] Carnegie states that their student body consists of 1,716 pupils with the potential for more as the “area to the south of Carnegie Borough is undergoing rapid expansion”.^[38] The county responds that not only did Carnegie construct schools against the recommendations of the county, but perhaps most damning, “There is no growth potential in Carnegie. It is losing 40% of its pupils annually to parochial schools.”^[38]

On February 4, 1960, Carnegie Borough submits their objection to being included in administrative unit 14 along with an investigation into the matter.

On February 10, 1960 the State Council of Education approved the revised plan from August 20, 1958 and originally deferred on October 21, 1959.^[39]

On May 15, 1961, Chartiers Valley Joint Schools submitted an opposition to the State Council of Education on South Fayette, Green Tree Borough, and Carnegie Borough being included in their administrative district.^[40] Chartiers Valley Joint Schools assert that South Fayette Township, Greentree Borough, and Carnegie Borough would haphazardly increase the district physical footprint to over double the current size, and that the additional 3 districts required large immediate capital expenditures without the ability to support themselves. The opposition states “instead the active and progressive jointure would now be burdened by its neighbors’ dereliction.”^[40]

The Department of Public Instruction does not have the power to force the Chartiers Valley Joint Schools to absorb the School Districts of Carnegie, Greentree, and South Fayette. Even if the Department is allowed to establish Administrative Unit 14, it should be delayed at least three years to allow the jointure to achieve necessary educational goals and then only admit one new district at a time.

This argument became the core tenant of the eventual lawsuits by the Chartiers Valley Joint Schools, leading to their appeal directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. A full history of the case and resulting opinions is available in the Chartiers Valley Legal Appeals section.

Between the final reorganization plan submission that was approved on February 10, 1960 and August 12, 1964, Allegheny County’s plan for reorganization dropped Carnegie Borough from administrative unit 30.^[41]

From this point through 1964, the enforcement of Act 561 (which became Act 299) was delayed by the legislature as changes were made to the reorganization law. Full details about these acts can be found in the Act 561 section and the Act 299 section. We were unable to locate records filed with the various state agencies during this period during a search at the Pennsylvania State Archives. When Act 561 was passed, any prior reorganization plan approvals were rescinded and plans needed to be resubmitted.Thus, although the county plan was approved having Chartiers Valley consist of Bridgeville Borough, Collier Township, Greentree Borough, Heidelberg Borough, and Scott Township, Act 299 nullified the approval. Allegheny County would need to resubmit proposals for approval under the new Act 299.

On August 12, 1964, the Council on Basic Education returned Allegheny County’s plan for reorganization to the Allegheny County Board of School Directors for review, research, reconciliation, and hopeful resolution of the 29 school districts opposing the plan.^[42] Dr. Alfred W. Beattie, then superintendent of county schools, is featured in a Pittsburgh Post Gazette article two days later at a loss on how to resolve the issues. “I am somewhat at a loss to know what the county board members can do because they have reviewed this so many times, and this plan represents their best judgment."^[43] He notes that if the county does not respond with an appropriate plan, the Department of Public Instruction will step in and draft their own plan with the power granted to them in Act 561.^[43]

South Fayette and West Deer are in such serious financial straits, he said, that they cannot support adequate school systems alone and would impose a heavy financial burden on any communities they are merged with.

He proposed additional state aid as “the only solution.” He said South Fayette is receiving $5,100 per teaching unit from the state this year. A teaching unit is composed of 30 elementary or 20 high school students… Most Allegheny County school districts are spending $10,000 to $15,000 per teaching unit.

Real estate taxes in South Fayette would have to be raised 37 mills to 54 mills, he said.

August 19, 1964, Harold O. Speidel and Herbet E. Bryan (director of the Bureau of School District Organization) are sent to Allegheny County by the state to evaluate the complaints with the plan and attempt to provide guidance on how the Council on Basic Education could proceed with the matter. Together, they conclude:

The districts in the Chartiers Valley unit oppose the inclusion of South Fayette Township. South Fayette Township is in an area where the mines are worked out although there is still strip-mining. There is little industry left in the township and poor future prospects. The district is in financial difficulty and Chartiers Valley’s objection to assuming the obligation of South Fayette may be justified. Chartiers Valley has worked hard to reconcile its differences and is currently operating a good school system. The County Board felt that there was reasonable objection to placing the burden of South Fayette on anyone but felt that the only solution was to combine it with another district unless the Commonwealth itself would assume an obligation to financially rehabilitate the district. The only possibility would have been to divide South Fayette into two parts and assign each part to different units so that no unit would be burdened with the financial problems in this instance. (I call your attention to the fact that Chartiers Valley went to court in an effort to enjoin the County Board. The court found for the County Board.

Chartiers Valley Legal Appeals (1964 - 1965)

As of August 1964, Allegheny County Board of School Directors had been returned their reorganization plan by the state due to ongoing disagreements by impacted school districts, notably Chartiers Valley. At this time, Chartiers Valley Joint Schools would have been in planned administrative unit 30. Unit 30 would have included South Fayette, incurring great financial difficulties for the proposed joint district.

The Chartiers Valley Joint School District sued the Allegheny County Board of School Directors in 1964 for their proposed reorganization plan, challenging the constitutionality of Act 299 and the power of the county board of school directors to dictate district consolidations:

Unit 30 - To be composed of Bridgeville Borough, Collier Township, Scott Township, Heidelberg Borough and South Fayette Township, four protests. Four of the five districts are in the Chartiers Valley and oppose inclusion of South Fayette because of its indebtedness. The four sought a court injunction on the ground that Act 229 is unconstitutional.

The Chartiers Valley Joint School district challenged that Act 299 was unconstitutional and that the Council of Education did not possess proper authority to enforce the act through forced mergers. After brief hearings on June 8, 1964 and June 9, 1964, Allegheny County Court denied the Application for Injunctive Relief by Order of Court dated June 9, 1964. The case was dismissed by the county court on June 29, 1964.

The court stated that the schools had failed to exhaust administrative procedures granted to them in Act 299 and Act 561. Act 561 provided the ability and process for a school to appeal a county’s proposed reorganization plan directly to the Pennsylvania State Board of Education. Once appealed, the board could choose to grant the appeal and return the county plan back for revisions, deny the appeal and uphold the county plan, or decide the plan themselves if the appeal was filed after the state-wide deadline for plan submissions. Chartiers Valley Joint Schools had failed to file an appeal under Act 561 to the Pennsylvania State Board of Education prior to the lawsuit which ultimately led to its dismissal.

Undeterred by the county court decision, the Chartiers Valley Joint School district appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It would be a year and one day after the county court dismissal when the supreme court case was also dismissed on June 30, 1965. With this decision, the court upheld Act 299 and its powers granted to state agencies as constitutional.

October 19, 1965, Chartiers Valley Joint Schools submits an appeal (granted under Act 561) to the State Board of Education on the county’s proposed plan. The board granted the appeal on November 11, 1965 which successfully removed South Fayette from the proposed administrative district. This was the outcome Chartiers Valley Joint Schools had been hoping for. It cemented that the Chartiers Valley Joint Schools would remain comprised of Bridgeville Borough, Collier Township, Scott Township, and Heidelberg Borough.

The South Central Special Schools (1964 - Present)

Amid the ongoing dissent over the county’s plan for reorganization, on September 23, 1964, 15 school districts in the south hills area formed a jointure named The South Central Area Special Schools to provide education for gifted students. “The purpose of the Joint School is to purchase land, construct, equip, and physically maintain, if necessary, a building or buildings for the education and training of exceptional children.”^[31]

The jointure included:

• Bethel Park Borough School District
• Carnegie Borough School District
• Castle Shannon Borough School District
• Crafton Borough School District
• Dormont Borough School District
• Greentree Borough School District
• Rosslyn Farms Borough School District
• Collier Township School District
• Heidelberg Borough School District
• Collier Township School District
• Scott Township School District
• Chartiers Valley Joint Schools
• Mount Lebanon Township School District
• South Fayette Township School District
• Upper St. Clair Township School District

This jointure was approved by the Allegheny County Board of School Directors on September 29, 1964.^[32]

The Chartiers Valley School District (1965 - Present)

With Chartiers Valley Joint Schools having been granted the appeal they long fought for, the time came to finalize the Chartiers Valley School District. From 1955 through 1965, the Chartiers Valley Joint Schools operated as four independent schools operating together to provide a better education for their residents. Each school had their own independent board of directors representing their interests, and one joint board composed of members from each district. Together, they navigated the uncertain reality of forced reorganization by the state through several legislative changes, county plan revisions, and endless infighting. The time had now come to formally merge to form a single unified entity and with it, a new identity.

On January 1, 1966 Chartiers Valley School District submitted their elections for an interim board of directors while they finalized the transition from joint schools (with independent boards) to a single joint board.^[45]

On February 4, 1966 the Department of Public Instruction approved the name “Chartiers Valley School District.”^[46]

The Chartiers Valley School District is in the process of reorganizing. A nine man Interim Operating Committee (I.O.C) was set up on January 10, 1966. Members of the I.O.C. were elected from the ranks of the original 27 member Chartiers Valley Join School Board by members of the board. Members of the I.O.C. are Mr. Richard Barrett, Mr. Zack J. D’Alesandro, Mr. William Keele, and Dr. Gerd Leston all of Scott Township. Representing Bridgeville are Mr. Samuel Zinger and Mr. Daniel E. Moore, Mr. Louis D. Puleo and Mr. Edward Kirby are members from Collier Township. Mr. Michael Caporizzo is the committee member from Heidelberg. The I.O.C will become the regular board on July 1, 1966, when the Chartiers Valley Joint School District becomes officially known as the Chartiers Valley School District. Until this date, the other members of the original 27 man board are serving in an advisory capacity to the I.O.C.

The reorganization period for the state (and Allegheny County) was not over, but it was for Chartiers Valley. This is where the history comes to an end. Chartiers Valley continues to operate today as it did beginning in the 1966 school year.