Originally, rural voters were hesitant to make the switch from one-room schooling to age-graded schooling. For starters, age-graded schools were more expensive to the community because of the increase in the number of teachers and the development of multi-room buildings. Also, transportation costs increased and there was less community control. Finally, students had to attend school without taking long absences. Therefore, farms lost their farmhands during the school season and families lost extra income that comes from the child-workers. Rural voters also believed that the removal of the old district would reduce their property values, rather than improve them. They saw the advantage in one-room schooling because the system allowed for a variable school year, a curriculum that matched their preferences, teaching staff that they felt were good-enough, and students could take as much or as little of what the school had to offer. Eventually, though, rural voters saw the advantages in the conversion to age-graded schooling. This was primarily because their children were at a disadvantage to those in the consolidated schools because they were less prepared for high school (which was necessary for acquiring a high-paying job). The curriculum of one-room schools had to be fitted to that of the graded curriculum, but it was almost always an imperfect match. Graduates of one-room schools would struggle in high school compared to those who attended consolidated, age-graded schools. They became a distraction and eventually urban high schools required rural students to pass a difficult entrance exam in order attend their school. One-room students were unequipped for this exam and it’s stigma even deterred students from attending high school. In order to better prepare their children, rural voters decided that age-graded schooling should replace the old school system, in order to improve their chance for social mobility. Other less-influential reasons that rural voters saw to the change were the threat of declining property values, especially because they would affect not only their residential wealth but also their business of farming and if their family needed to move from a rural to an urban school, their child would not struggle or be found disruptive. Rather, they could pick up, essentially, right where they left off, just at a different school.