Since 2000, 19 states have had school district secessions, which occur when a community leaves the district it was part of, creating both a new and a left-behind district. Secessions can reshape the distribution of educational resources and opportunities, often concentrating them in the new district. But how secessions happen—specifically the laws and regulations used to approve or deny a secession—differ from place to place.

Relying on previous work, we analyzed state laws and regulations that define the criteria and steps used to approve or deny secession efforts in the 19 states with successful secessions since 2000, according to our database.

We find that laws regulating secession vary significantly across states, often leaving decisionmakers with incomplete or inconsistent information to assess potential impacts. But state policymakers can help. They could provide communities and local policymakers with standardized guidance for secession, such as planning templates and data sources, and require that decisionmakers consider a range of outcomes when deciding whether to approve a secession.

The people and processes involved in approving and implementing school district secessions vary widely

Across the 19 states with secessions, the people involved in secession decisions and implementation differ. In some states, voters within the community of the proposed district initiate the secession process, while in others, an authoritative body must start the process. In Utah, a community can start the secession process if 15 percent of voters in the proposed district sign a petition. But in Indiana, only a county committee created by a circuit judge can start the process.

We see similar variation in who’s authorized to approve secessions. Most states require approval from a designated authority, but who holds that authority varies. In California, secessions must be approved by the state board of education; in Ohio, by the state legislature; and in New Jersey, by the commissioner of education. In Colorado, the commissioner of education convenes an ad hoc planning committee to evaluate proposals. Some states have designated authority to approve the movement first and then require voters to serve as final approvers. In some cases, like in New Hampshire, referendums require majority approval from voters in both the potential new district and the left-behind district. In Alabama, secession requires the creation of a new city. Once formed, the municipality can choose to form its own school district.

States also differ in how explicitly they define the secession process, ranging from detailed step-by-step procedures to more ambiguous or discretionary approaches. Some states have detailed statutes, while others have vague statutes or require that relevant authorities issue guidance. Maine requires that towns or cities follow a 22-step process for withdrawing from a regional district. In contrast, Montana has no explicit statutory guidance governing how a secession should proceed. In some cases, like Louisiana, a new school district can only be created though a constitutional amendment, which is seemingly more easily facilitated by the creation of a new town or city.

Feasibility studies can shed light on secession impacts, but they’re often focused on a limited set of factors—if they’re required at all

The criteria used to evaluate secession proposals can also be vague. Among the 19 states with secessions, only 10 explicitly require feasibility studies or impact assessments. These studies are a preliminary step in the approval process that helps decisionmakers assess the potential consequences of a secession.

Typically, a feasibility study focuses on the financial viability of the new and left-behind districts and other potential outcomes following a secession. Most states consider one or a combination of the following factors: the racial or socioeconomic composition of the student bodies, districts’ capacities to fund themselves, and potential effects on funding for the left-behind district.

But these factors differ significantly across the 10 states that require feasibility studies. South Dakota considers the assessed valuation of all taxable properties, assets, and liabilities left after secession; the expected school populations and student ages for both districts; and more. These factors help determine a school district’s budget and operational strength, including the resources and debts it will have and the number of students it will have to serve after a split. Wisconsin requires communities to evaluate secession’s effects on educational quality and the overall demographic and socioeconomic composition of the student bodies in both districts. Looking at educational quality alongside budget effects can help assess whether educational opportunities will remain equitable between communities.

Some states have additional requirements—outside of budget and socioeconomic factors—as part of their feasibility studies. Virginia requires geographical and topographical considerations related to transportation, and Nebraska requires the new and the left-behind districts to identify the physical infrastructure that will be used for schools. In Wisconsin, secession requires testimony and written statements from residents. Some states allow additional requirements on a case-by-case basis. In California, the state board of education has authority to add criteria to the secession approval process, in addition to financial and equity considerations.

Though requiring feasibility studies is beneficial, most states don’t specify what type of data or methods should be used for these assessments. California is one exception, having created a template for what a feasibility study should contain.

When communities and policymakers understand the potential consequences of a secession, they can make better choices

The variation in secession processes and requirements we’ve documented suggests parents, school boards, and state and local government officials may be making enduring choices about education resources with inconsistent or incomplete information.

In many states, laws and regulations provide limited guidance on how secessions should be evaluated. To help decisionmakers systematically and transparently assess proposed secessions, states could

• offer standardized templates for planning secessions,
• define data sources that could be used to assess a secession’s potential impacts,
• require impact assessments, and
• provide clear evaluative criteria.

Some states require that decisionmakers consider school districts’ financial feasibility when evaluating secession proposals. And though that’s an important consideration, it shouldn’t be the only one. Expanding the scope of analysis to include factors such as changes in resource concentration at the district and state levels and school-level educational quality could promote more equitable outcomes for students in both the new and left-behind districts. But more data and evidence are needed to determine which factors are most important to consider to avoid unintended negative consequences for students. We also need to better understand how those factors should be analyzed or evaluated to be useful in decisionmaking.

By analyzing the holistic impact of school district secessions, communities and local governments can make more informed decisions and, ultimately, help ensure all students have access to needed resources and supports. Over the coming months, we will analyze secessions’ impacts on communities and states to further equip residents and local leaders with the transparency and data they need to weigh in on decisions that affect their lives.