ED 114 930

DOCUMENT RESUME

95 EA 007 671

AUTHOR Foster, Badi G.TITLE. The Orientation and Training of School Board Members.

A Position Paper Prepared by the RecruitmentLeadership and Training Institute.

INSTITUTION Recruitment Leadership and Training Inst.,Philadelphia, Pa.

-SPONS AGENCY Bureau.of Occupatiohal-and Adult Education (DHEW/04,Washington, D.C. Div. of Educational SystemsDevelopment.

PUB DATE Jul 75NOTE 85p.; Pages 61-70 may reproduce poorly due to small

print in the original document

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC- $4.43. Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS' *Board of Education Role; *Boards of Education; *Case

StudieS (Education); Elementary Secondary Education;*Guidelines; *Leadership Training; OrganizationalChange; Orientation; School Segregation.

IDENTIFIERS Illinois (Chicago) ; Minnesota (Minneapolis)

ABSTRACTThis booklet is intended to encourage and aid local

school boards in undertaking training programs that will enable themto functiOn more effectively. Relying heavily on case studieS ofschool boards in Chicago and Minneapolis, the author focuses on twomajor problems facing school board members today--the phenomenon ofincreasing bureaucratization and the challenge of desegregation.Chapter 1 discusses the nature of school boards and the challengesfacing them today. Chapter 2 focuses on the experiences of schoolboard members in Chicago and Minneapolis. Chapter 3 comments on thepractices of school boards in general and the Chicago and Minneapolis-boards in particular. Chapter 4 presents the author's conclusionsabout the selection and training of school board members and offersspecific suggestions for training board members to meet the demandsof their position. (JG)

************************************************************************ . Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal .*

* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *

* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available* via +he ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not ** responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.***********************************************************************

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION....

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSCD STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFl`c\ EDUrATiON POSITION OR POLICY

LU

2

The RecruitmentLeadership andTraining Institute

The Recruitment Leadership and Training Institute (LTI) is apanel which provides technical and developmental assistanceto projects funded under the Education Professions Develop-ment Act, P.L. 90-35, Part A, Section 504, New Careers inEducation Program and administered by the Division of Edu-cational Systems Development, U.S. Office of Education.

Dr. Eunice A. ClarkeDirector, LTIAssistant Vice PresidentResearch and ProgramDevelopmentTemple UniversityPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania19122

Panel Members

Mr. Warren H. BaconAssistant DirectorIndustrial RelationsInland Steel CompanyChicago, Illinois

Mrs. Christine J. Moore, DeanStudent Personnel ServicesHarbor CampusCommunity College ofBaltimoreBaltimore, Maryland

Mrs. Jean Sampson, TrusteeUniversity of MaineLewiston, Maine

Dr. Irving RosensteinAssistant Director, LTITemple UniversityPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania19122

Dr. James W. KelleyDirector of Urban AffairsSt. Cloud State CollegeSt. Cloud, Minnesota

Mr. Edward V. MorenoPrincipalSan Fernando High-SchoolSan Fernando, California

Mr. Farley J. SeldonPrincipal .

John Hay High SchoolCleveland Public SchoolsCleveland, Ohio

Dr.. Ronald W. TyrrellChairmanDepartment of IntermediateEducationCleveland State UniversityCleveland, Ohio

Professor Dorothy F. WilliamsChairpersonDepartment of CommunicationsSimmons CollegeBoston, Massachusetts

Dr. Marian B. WarnerSupervisorBusiness EducationSchool District ofPhiladelphiaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

The activity which is the subject of this report was sup-ported in whole or in part by the U.S. Office of Education,Department of Health, Education and Welfare. However, theopinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the posi-tion or policy of the U.S. Office of Education, and no officialendorsement by the U.S. Office of Education should beinferred.

Chapter

Table of Contents

Preface 21 Introduction 52 Case Studies: School Boards in Two Cities 12

Chicago 14Minneapolis 32

3 Some Comments on School Board Practices 444 Conclusions and Recommendations 52

AppendicesA. Literature on School Boards 68B. Bibliography 75

1

tl

Preface

The Recruitment Leadership and Training Institute (LTI) is apanel which provides technical assistance to projects fundedby the U.S. Office of Education under Section 504 of theEducation Professions Development Act. Although none ofthese projects deals directly with orientation and training formembers of school boards, the Recruitment LTI has becomeincreasingly aware of the critically important role whichthese groups some elected, some appointed play indetermining whether new, promising, innovative educationalprograms are attempted at all and whether or not they suc-ceed in living up to their promise.

Because of its belief that orientation and training of schoolboard members might assist boards of education not onlyto understand the complexity of school systems, but toinitiate and implement educational policies designed to dealwith critical issues, the Recruitment LTI commissionedDr. Badi G. Foster, Associate Professor, University of Massa-chusetts/Boston and Lecturer in the Harvard Graduate Schoolof Education, to undertake a study of the theory and prac-tice of school boards. Dr. Foster's research, based on exten-sive examination of the literature and interviews with keyschool board personnel, and an analysis by the RecruitmentLTI is presented in this position paper. Using school boardexperience in two major cities (Chicago, Illinois; and Minne-apolis, Minnesota), this paper focuses on two major prob-lems facingschool board members across the country: thephenomenon of increasing bureaucratization and the chal-lenge of desegregation.

This report is presented with the hope that those associatedwith school boards will find challenge and encouragement toundertake training programs which will enable school boardmembers to function more effectively in meeting not onlythe specific problems dealt with here, k-ut the whole range of

2

duties which constitute their responsibilities, as representa-tives of parents and the public for the education of America'schildren.

Special appreciation is extended to Ms. Grace Watson, Co-ordinator of New Careers in Education Programs, U.S. Officeof Education, for her assistance and support.

3

Chapter1Introduction

re.

By the end of the nineteenth century, the inadequacy of localprivate efforts to provide education for American childrenforced the states to take a more active role. In order to estab-lish a comprehensive system of schools on the local level andto insure that such schools would be properly governed, thestates created local agents to provide the necessary controland accountability while maintaining the traditions of demo-cratic localism. The direct election of school board members(or their selection by locally elected officials) appeared to bethe most effective manner for state governments to meet theirobligations, while providing local citizens a genuine voice indeciding what was important in the education of their chil-dren. The reluctance of state legislators to enter into fulldebate as to the appropriate content of education'at the locallevel further strengthened the role of the local school boards.

Although delegated powers of local school boards vary fromstate to state, boards of education are generally responsiblefor making policy, developing programs, employing personnel,providing educationally related services and managing the useof the physical facilities of the school district, and in some'cases, levyirig taxes. In discharging these responsibilities, localboards of education are constrained or empowered by severalsources of authority. These include the state constitution,legislative enactments, and rules and regulations of the stateboard of education.

The context within which school boards work and the prob-lems which they face are considerably more varied and com-plex today than when they were first established. In additionto the emergence of changing and conflicting concepts of therole and function of schools, more people parents, teachers,administrators and students are becoming involved inschool governance. Traditional organizations such as Parent-Teacher Associations or Home and School Associations areno longer the sole vehicle for parents to use in expressing

5

their views to school board members. Demonstrations, pro-test actions, recall elections, and direct lobbying of city andstate officials are alternate ways of conveying citizens' viewsto members of school boards. Teachers are expressing grow-ing militancy not only through membership in unions butmore importantly by attempting to extend the scope ofcollective .bargaining to include policy issues. Some are advo-cating collective bargaining as an effective process for increas-ing the role of teachers in the governance of the schools. Theimpact of the 18-year-old vote and the enactment by statelegislatures of Student Bills of Rights represent changes inthe expectations of students vis-a-vis local school boards.New constituencies outside the school system are demandinga voice and greater representation in matters of school boardpolicy. Models for increased community participation rangefrom advisory committees to complete citizen control.Efforts toward administrative decentralization have creatednew constituencies within the system at the area or districtlevel. Public advocacy and other social reform groups aremaking demands upon local school boards demands whichare overwhelming in their breadth and complexity.

Patterns of school finance are being remolded. The impact ofcourt decisions, finding the states to be in violation of theequal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, hasyet to be fully appreciated. Local school boards can no longerrely on their own tax revenues for sufficient financial support.The impact of inflation and the cut-back of Federal funds hascaused local school boards simultaneously to have fewer dol-lars and less buying power than in previous years.

At the state level, legislatures are exerting greater control overfinance, certification, professional standards and educationalpolicy. Recent reorganization of state departments of educa-tion led by new chief state school officers, the expanded roleof state boards of education, revenue-sharing and larger Fed-

6

eral grants to state departments along with regulations requir-ing increased state involvement in educational matters haveled to the state's re-emergence as a significant power inpreviously :ocal matters.

The design, development and implementation of nationaltests for the selection of college students and instruments for.measuring educational achievemert have affected the inde-pendence of local boards in matLers of curriculum and policy.The efforts of the U.S. Office of Education, the National In-stitute of Education Foundation, private foundations suchas the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation, todevelop new curricula or new models of participation furthercurtail local autonomy.

National business corporations with interests in publishingtextbooks or in other items of educational techno ogy limitthe options among which local systems may choose. Finally,congressional legislation such as the Vocational EducationAct, Economic Opportunity Act, Elementary and SeCondaryEducation Act, the Higher Education Act and the EducationAmendments of 1972 and 1974 have all had direct impact onlocal school board operations.

The administration of school systems may once have been arelatively simple affair: the board of education made policiesand the superintendent carried them out, at least in textbooktheory, if not practice. But today's school boards, like all insti-tutions and agencies, are caught in the swiftly moving tides ofchange. Old definitions of problems disappear even beforesolutions are formulated; parties and pressure groups seempowerful and intimidating' one month and are dissolved bythe next; governr'nent programs, directives and funds some-times seem as changeable as the weather. How, in the face ofconstant change, are school boards to function both demo-cratically and effectively? That is, how are they to absorb

71 u

the continuous stream of information, requests or demandsfor change, and at the same time keep the school system ona steady course even while innovations are being developedand implemented?

School boards are democratic institutions and are obliged toact democratically. Although their particular responsibility iseducation, they, no less than city councils, state legislaturesor Congress, must solicit and attend to the views of all citi-zens, reach decisions with due regard for the general welfare,and conduct their business in an open and equitable manner.At the same time, however, school boards are ultimatelyresponsible for the management of school systems, which arebureaucratic institutions. School systems, like all bureauc-racies, are designed to accomplish large-scale administrativetasks efficiently, and thus to systematize, standardize androutinize, to reduce complex and often conflicting demandsto manageable operating policies and procedures.

As Peter Blau has pOinted out in his book, Bureaucracy inModern Society, (New York: Random House, 1950) there isan inherent conflict between the demands of the democraticprocess (which values freedom of discussion and variety ofopinion) and those of the bureaucratic process (.which valuesthe elimination of differences in order to maximize efficiency):On the one hand, school boards are required (if they are toretain their democratic character) to take whatever time isnecessary for the full and free expression of public opinion,to attempt to reach a consensus agreeable to the majority,although with due regard for minority rignts, Almost everyitem of the business which comes before them (e.g., schoolconstruction sites, selection of textbooks, neighborhoodschool boundary lines) has the potential for protracted argu-ment in public hearings. On the other hand, the day-to-dayoperation of the schools demands instantaneous decisionson a myriad of specific issues: is this house to be razed? is

8

this textbook to be ordered? is this child to be allowed toenroll in this school? Without guidelines, paralysis or chaoscould well overwhelm the entire operation. The school sys-tem, from teachers and principals to the superintendent,looks to the. school board fdr resolution of the issues beforeit; the public, particularly those segments newly aware oftheir rights to participation in democratic decision-making,would rather postpone decisions until compromises satis-factory to all participants can be found.

Caught between the demands of democracy and of bureauc-racy, the tasks of school boards are further complicated bythe rapid change which characterizes every aspect of modernlife. Moreover, their responsibilities are expanding into newareas. Already (in many places) the single largest employersin terms of payroll and personnel, school boards are beingasked to undertake many functions which were formerly re-garded as being in the domain of family, churches or otherprivate institutions. But while new definitions of educationmultiply, the funds to provide these services are increasinglydifficult to secure. Small wonder, then, that school boards,like schdbi superintendents, are frequently at the center ofstorms of controversy.

School superintendents have considerable training whichprepares them for their responsibilities as educational admin-istrators. What of school board members? Average citizenselected or selected to serve on a school board., no matter howconcerned about schoolaffairs, are usually ill-prepared tounderstand or cope with the complexities of their dual role:as representatives of the people and as directors of thebureaucracy. What opportunities do they have to learn howto handle their responsibilities effectively? What programsexist which provide orientation and training in, for example,educational philosophy or organizational behavior? How canthey develop the capacity to respond to persistent and rapid

9 , 1

change without sacrificing either democratic participatoryprocesses or the necessary efficiency of operation?

The Recruitment Leadership and Training Institute believesthat school boards, in order to be both democratic andeffective institutions, must begin to utilize all available re-sources to assist them to make and enforce decisions whichwill absorb and generate change.*

By "resources" is meant not simply the financial power orpolitical strength to enforce policy decisions, critical as theymay be. Rather, "resources" is defined here as "expertise"or access to the expertise, including educational, organiza-tion, financial and political skills, needed to understandschool system operation and to develop systematic, effi-cient and effective ways of dealing with the business thatcomes before boards of education. Otherwise, they canrespond to pressure and change in one of two, equally dys-functional, ways: resistance and repression, or unplannedand purposeless innovation.

Before attempting to determine effective orientation andtraining procedures, however, it may be both interestingand helpful to explore some of the ways in which schoolboards currently operate. In the following section, membersof school boards in two cities Chicago. and Minneapolis.recount some of their experiences as they and their fellowboard members,responded.to conflicting pressures. Certainof their comments deal with the issues presented by theoverwhelming complexity of the bureaucratic organizationfor which' they were responsible; others relate to the tensionssurrounding the demands for desegregated schools. At the

The term "absorb" as used here means openness to The consideration of alter-natives from outside the system and incorporation of them into the system; theterm "generate" means to create a climate in which alternatives can proliferateand become viable, accepted modes of practice.

10 1 6

conclusion of these narratives, the implications of the twocase studies are discussed, and finally, a few specific recom-mendations are offered relating to the orientation and train-ing of school board members.

11 1

Chapter 2Case Studies:School Boardsin Two Cities

While generalizations about the nature of and responses toproblems confronting school boards may be useful for somepurposes, this paper employs simple case studies as a way ofillustrating selected problems and contrasting ways of meet-ing them. The actual experience of two school boardsChicago and Minneapolis in dealing with school systembureaucratization and the challenges of desegregation providethe data for observation and analysis.

Bureaucracy is, quite simply, the type of organization estab-lished to coordinate the work of -many individuals to accom-plish efficiently large-scale administrative tasks. Rapidlyexpanding populations and the increased complexity of mod-ern life, in its political, economic and social dimension, haverequired the systematization of numerous functions, if totalchaos is to be avoided. Max Weber, the nineteenth centurytheoretician, outlined the following characteristics of abureaucratic structure: (1) clear division of labor, (2) admin-istrative hierarchy, (3) explicit rules to assure uniform per-formance of tasks, (4) impersonal formality towards clients,(5) personnel policies specifying technical qualifications forhiring and promotion. All these characteristics are intendedto eliminate irrationality (e.g., favoritism) and maximizeoperating efficiency; and, ideally, they do. In reality, ofcourse, bureaucratic behavior may display inconsistency,informality, irrationality, and ultimately, dysfunctionalinefficiency.

The school board, as was pointed out earlier, is a form ofdemocratic institution, a representative group of citizens-attempting to decide on common goals and programs. Freeexpression of opinion, among members and from the generalpublic, is an essential requirement if it is to retain democraticcharacter. However, the day-to-day management of theschool system is necessarily in the hands of a bureaucracy,the nature of which is to reduce comp'ex and sometimes

121

conflicting demands to standard operating procedures. Theproblems inherent in the uneasy, but apparently essential,marriage of democracy and bureaucracy confront not onlyschool boards, but all institutions in a democratic society,with almost insoluble dilemmas. An understanding of thenature of bureaucracy and its potential dangers is certainlya basic requisite for those charged with conducting publicbusiness in a democracy.

Perhaps the most severe tests of school board effectiveness asa democratic institution have been those relating to the inte-gration or desegregation of the schools. Following the 1954Brown vs. Board of Education decision which outlawedsegregation in the public schools altogether, the SupremeCourt stated in its 1955 supplementary decree that "schoolauthorities have the primary responsibility of elucidating,assessing, and solving these problems (ed. local schoolarrangements which required or permitted discrimination onthe basis of race); courts will have to consider whether theaction of school authorities constitutes good faith implemen-tationof the governing constitutional principles."

Twenty years later, after two decades of civil rights activity,court cases, Federal regulations, and formal and informalstudies of the methods and impact of desegregation activity,the Court's mandate has still to be complied with. The focus,has, of course, swung from the de jure segregation of south-ern school systems to the de facto segregation existing inthe North and fortified by housing patterns. Whether in theSouth or the North, whether responsible for many or fewminority students, school boards throughout the nation havehad to cope in some fashion with the implications of thefinding that "separate facilities are inherently 'unequal." Thestory of how northernschool boards are dealing with thisrequirement is not yet concluded, but the evidence from

13 ti

Chicago

Chicago and Minneapolis is an interesting contribution tothat story.

Material for this section may be termed "oral history," forit consists almost in its entirety in transcriptions of tapedinterviews with members of school boards in the selectedcities. Clearly, their comments represent their own recollec-tions and interpretations of the events described, and noattempt was made to "balance" their accounts or even tosubstantiate them. .

Serious and considered deliberation was given to the possi-bility of presenting these case studies without identifyingeither persons or cities. In the case of Chicago, any attemptto preserve anonymity appeared to destroy the integrity ofthe rationale for its selection even if it were possible todisguise its unique identity. The Chicago experience was sowidely publicized and the circumstances so fully discussedin all of the media that to obscure the identity would havebeen not only dysfunctional to the purposes of this paper,but also in the ultimate, dishonest. Minneapolis, whoseidentity might more easily be obscured, would have fallenheir to the same lack of purpose and integrity.

The purpose here is to provide evidence of the need forimproved orientation and training of school board membersrecognizing that in their day-to-day operations they mustdeal with some of the most crucial problems facing Americansociety. For that purpose, Aheir highly personal presentationsmore than suffice.

Chicago is comprised of what some have called a series ofsubdivided territories or neighborhoods. On a main line ofmigration from the South, the city has seen its minorityand poor white populations increased dramatically since the.1940's. In a study made during the middle sixties by the U.S.

14

Civil Rights Commission, it was termed the most raciallysegregated city in the North, if not in the country; its segre-gated school system had some'schools operating at up to100% over capacity while others were at 70% of capacity inorder to maintain "neighborhood schools." Heading theschool system are the 11-member Board of Education andthe Superintendent of Schools, and students number overfifty thousand, of whom approximately 65% are members ofminority groups. Until thQ mid-sixties, education for the citywas managed by a highly centralized bureaucracy; althoughnow decentralized, the school system has not, in the opinionof several researchers and commentators, noticeably changedits policies and programs.

Key actors in the Chicago "drama" are Mayor Richard Daley,now serving his twentieth year as Mayor of the third largestcity in the country; Benjamin Willis, Superintendent of Chi-cago Schools from 1953 to 1966, Warren Bacon, AssistantDirector, Industrial Relations, Inland Steel Company andfrom 1963 to 1973 a member of the Chicago Board of Educa-tion, and James Clement, a Chicago patent attorney who servedon the board from 1964 to 1966.

... Warren Bacon on the Chicago School Board

Appointment to "I was appointed in 1963, and I guess one of the :aasons Ithe School was appointed was because there was considerable contro-Board versy about minority representation on the Board. I was one

of the few who had been suggested who could afford thetime during the day to attend the meetings.

"One of the reasons [for my appointment] was that I amblack and a male. At that time there was only one black per-son on the 11-member Board, a fernale, who was stronglyidentified with the administration of the city, and also withthe then Superintendent of Schools, Ben Willis. He was con-

158

sidered to be an arch foe of integration, and since the com-munity at large felt that there was insufficie t minorityrepresentation on the Board, a male minori y member camewell recommended."

Controversy "I was seated in the midst of a very energetic troversy,over major issues not only being integration but also the utilizationIntegration of unused classrooms and vacant seats [which] were available

in white schools surrounding the black ghetto. There was astrong feeling that the school system was containing theblack community.

"The majority of the board members felt like the superintend-ent did they didn't want any part of this issue. So you hadthe ludicrous situation where the Board of Education didn'teven acknowledge [that] there was a problem. We didn'tdiscuss it in Board of Education meetings. They said theBoard was color blind; therefore, black/white problems didn'texist. It was a knock down, drag out fight here in Chicago.[Among the actors in the controversy] . . . was the Coor-dinating Council of Community Organizations. It was apowerful group of community and city-wide agencies demand-ing integration. The Board virtually ignorecrthe Council. Wehad the first student boycott of any massive size, in the fallof 1963. Nearly four hundred thousand kids stayed out ofschool. The politicians got involved in it and, of course, itwent down partisan lines. . . There were sit-ins and demon-strations at the Board offices and the downtown area. . . itwas a super-charged climate. The Business Advisory Councilof the Chicago.Urban League, composed of top officers frommajor corporations in the city got involved; they took out afull-page ad in the newspapers calling for some action on thepart of the Board.

"School problems were page-one news throughout theperiod. People demonstrated at schools, protesting the

161

The MayorSteps in

board policy, which was to adhere to the neighborhoodschool concept (consisting of gerrymandered lines drawnaround the schools), which together with housing segrega-tion insured continued school segregation . . . [Willis]was building many new schools in the black neighborhoods,ostensibly to relieve over-crowding. That was viewed bymany as a way of containing blacks rather than allowingthem to move over to under-utilized classrooms on theperiphery. People literally threw their bodies in front of thebulldozers -to halt school construction; a priest was killed,run over by a bulldozer inadvertently."

"Simultaheously, something else was happening. MayorDaley had always been accepted in the black community as afriehd. But more and more people were becoming disen-chanted with him because they felt that he took no leader-ship in social matters.

"The NAACP had their national convention here in June,1963. Daley spoke at the convention. Before he had alwaysreceived a standing ovation, however, this time he made twoerrors: he pretended that he didn't know what all the rhubarbwas about; and he said there were no ghettos in Chicago;people weren't living in crumblirig shacks [with] rats bitingthe kids. . . . He was booed for the first time in the blackcommunity by a large group of people who were in anorganization that was considered friendly to him.

"The Board of Education held firm to its neighborhoodschool policy. The Board had, however, considered and ten-tatively adopted, but never implemented, a modified transferpolicy that would allow people in certain areas to go toschools other than their neighborhood school. The Boarddelayed action on this policy and a group of parents tookthe matter to court. The judge agreed with the parents. . . .

A subpoena was issued for the Superintendent. When they

17

2(,

tried to serve the subpoena. . . he heard them coming [and]sought to avoid it by going out the back door as they werecoming in the front.

"When the Board could no longer avoid the problem of segre-gation, it used the device of holding public hearings, to hearwhat the public wanted . . . . I recall the President of theBoard of Education, vvho was opposed to any integration,meeting with some of the local politicians at the Board ofEducation executive offices, in private. Some of the reporterscovering the situation eavesdropped and, overheard the Presi-dent, Frank Whiston, promise these political representativesthat there would never be any open enrollment or modifiedopen enrollment as long as he had anything to do with it.

"The same backlash communities that opposed integrationalso opposed any change in the curriculum, administration,or anything else. Other groups in the city who were notnecessarily involved In the race issue were going to court totry to get new programs introduced. . . such as shared time,sex education, etc. The Chicago Board of Education hasbeen surrounded by controversy for the last fifteen years.Most of it has been racially oriented. As other school systemsbegan, however slowly, to move and deal realistically withthis question [desegregation] , Chicago was different. Evenafter court action, it resisted. Even after the Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare suspended Federal funds,they continued to resist in fact, Mayor Daley pressuredPresident Lyndon B. Johnson to have Francis Keppel, Com-missioner of Education, rescind the suspension order and itwas."

Election of "As Board membership changed over the years, it refleCtedBoard much of the division which existed in the city. This wasOfficers clearly seen in the election of the Board president in 1970. I

challenged the old guard leadership which always had been

18

white, always male, always close to the Mayor by becom-ing a candidate for President ... not su Pjsingly,.that chal-lenge became a hot issue.

"Prior to the annual election that spring, it appeared I hadthe necessary six votes to be elected President. A Board mem-ber, whose term was expiring and who had made known hissupport for me, was not reappointed, even though he hadindicated willingness to continue serving. Failure to reappointa willing Board member was unprecedented. This left mewith only five votes' one short and since one of my re-maining supporters was under heavy pressure by the cityadministration not to vote fbr me, I withdrew from the raceat the last minute rather than jeopardize the beleagueredmember.

"1.everal months later, the Board President died and I becamea candidate again. The Boa 7d refused to hold another elec-t on until a replacement was appointed to the Board. Thisprocess dragged on for three or four months. In the mean-time, community organizations took to the streets to try toforce my election. They perceived the issue as one in whichthe city administration which influences all important de-cisions in the city, as not wanting an independent black towin the school board presidency. Groups held mass meetings,demonstrations and parades supporting me. Jesse Jackson(and his group) threatened to boycott downtown stores duringthe Christmas season if I wasn't elected. Members of the City,Council squabbled over approval of the replacement member.

"It was alleged that the new person appointed to the Boardhad to agree not to vote for me in order to win Councilapproval. When the Board finally held the election, an un-precedented action took place instead of voting openly inpublic as had been the custom, this time the vote was bysecret ballot ... [Bacon lost] . The black and liberal groups

199;2

which had supported me were very bitter and accused theMayor of interfering in school affairs.

"The divisions on and off the Board became very pronouncedwhich, in my opinion, prevented the Board from dealing

realistically with school problems. Other cities were moreforthright in their approach than Chicago, though they hadnot resolved all their problems. The Chicago Board was in-capable of providing the leadership necessary to handle effec-tively even routine situations. For example, the distributionof textbooks and supplies is a perennial hassle at the begin-ing of each school year. Kids sit in many classrooms six toeightweeks before textbooks are made available to them."

Administrative "[When I first joined the Board, it] had been deliberating forand a number of months [about undertaking] a comprehensiveOrganizational study of the school system, its effectiveness, its methods, etc.Problems The person who had been touted the most to head up the

study was a prominent professor from the UniVersity of Chi-cago. Superihtendent Willis wanted no part of him, nor thestudy. He threatened to resign if the Board even consideredhim as the head of the study; he did, in fact, submit hisresignation. He said he was going to go on TV and speakdirectly to the public (those very strong pockets of backlash,which supported him). Willis curried the favor of thesepeople and gave them strength and sustenance by. not takingany action on the pressing school-related matters.

"There were also a large number of whites in the city whofelt that their kids were not getting a decent education,basically because of the ineptitude of the system. It hadgotten too big, too bureaucratic, to deal effectively withchanging needs. [They] wanted to see some improverhent.

"The Board has never been geared to deal with the fast-changing problems which confronted it. I'm not talking just

20 2,3

about race problems, but growth, population expansionand changing life styles. Student enrollment jumped from310,000 in 1954 to 600,000 in 1965. An increase in excessof 20,000 new students each year. It was a tremendousadministrative problem, together with the rapidly changingtheories of education, the knowledge explosion. You had abureaucratic organization which prided itself in doing thingsthe same old way. There wasn't a willingness to look at theproblem and see what could be done about it. Everythinghad to fit the existing mold.

"The Superintendent threatened to resign again because hecharged that Board members were becoming too involved inadministrative matters. He [Willis] developed a system where-by Board members could not talk to any administrative.people except through his office, and he even developed a setof procedures for Board member-staff interaction. Organiza-tional matters came up, and the Board felt that there was agreat need for a hard look at the organization structure. Wehired a company to make an extensive study, and the recom-mendations were partially accepted and implemented. One ofthe problems which a number of the Board members saw, andcontinue to see, is that the Board never extricates itself fromdealing with minutiae. By State law the Board must pass onevery appointment, every expenditure of money over a mini-mal amount. They tried to deal with that by adopting reportson an omnibus basis. We'd get thick reports each meeting andwe'd meet twice a month. Board members wanted to showthat they'd read the damn things, so they asked a lot of asininequestions such as what kind of typewriters, paper, etc., werepurchased. The Board never got around to its more criticalfunction of policy-making.

Centralization "This is a highly centralized system, which was fostered byand Opposition Ben Willis, in his 13 years here. He was a strong personality;to Change staff had to follow the party line. He allowed no real devia-

21 24

tion, no initiative at the local level. Many people in the system.who had a jot of talent, and a lot of ability either went else-where or saw their talents atrophied because they didn't havea chance to use them. Willis' successor wascompletely theopposite. But many of the old-line people had lost all the zestfor innovation and change, and they continued to look toheadquarters for minute, day-to-day guidance instead of exer-cising initiative, or looking to the district office or the princi-pal's office for direction. I wanted to strengthen the principal,hold the principal responsible; give him some authority andlet him run his own ship.

"How do you change a structure when you have people whodon't understand that structure and don't want to come togrips with it because it's something that is foreio.i? You raninto the desire to maintain the status quo from a large part ofthe community as well as people with vested interests withinthe system. The school system is a billion dollar operation,one of the largest enterprises in the state; with 44,000 em-ployees, 575,000 students, 550 schools. It is being run by apolicy-making group, that doesn't want to make policy and[by] a staff with little or no management expertise. The staff,sensing the division among the Board members the:progres-sives' and the 'status-quoers,' played politics by not rockingthe boat either way. As a resiilt, you have one of the mostinept school systems, in my judgment, of any of the largecities. Yet, through the union, and the mediation of theMayor the level of staff compensation was steadily increasedso that Chicago has perhaps the highest starting rates forteachers in the country, and one of the poorest studentachievement levels. That's been documented by study afterstudy. Our kids come to the public schools almost at thenational average in reading readiness tests but they declinethe longer they stay in school, as opposed to Baltimore, forinstance, where they show a modest improvement.

22

Budgetary and "The budget is very intricate and complex. And I think pur-Financial posely so. Administrators don't want the Board to understandMatters the budget. Board members don't always recognize that the

budget is a very important instrument of policy-making. Youget so bogged down in the details of trying to understand it,that you don't have the perspective to deal with iteffectively. For instance,' e of my pet issues.in the policyarea, that the Board wouldn't come to grips with, was that wespent more money for high-school students than we did forelementary students. Many student problems stem from pooreducation at the elementary level. We have more overcrowdingand fewer resources in the elementary grades than in the highschools. If we're ever going to break the cycle of remedialreading and arithmetic, we've got to do a better job in thelower grades. That means moving more resources to the ele-mentary schools. Well, I could never drum up six votes to getthat done. I think part of the problem in dealing with thosekinds of issues or in developing priorities [is that] the 11-member Board tried to operate the system rather than setpolicy, goals and objectives.

"Our financial system is very archaic, and the Board of Edu-cation was constantly exposed publicly through audits byoutside agencies concerning improper expenditures. But theBoard members never found out about these things/until sixmonths hter when we read about it in the newspaper. Thepayment of invoices was terrible; vendors, particularly smallones, had to wait up to six months before being paid. Youdidn't always know where money was spent. There wasn'ttimely and accurate reporting of funds. To correct this meanta complete overhauling of the financial and accounting sys-tem, which was an expensive proposition.

"This occurred at a time when the schools were very short ofmoney, and it was very difficult to get enough Board mem-

*

23 r" )

bers to see that spending the money to improve financialreporting was a wise investment."

. . . James Clement on theChicago School Board

Appointment to "Although I had a five-year appointment, I was on the Boardthe School from about May, 1964, to about May, 1966. The amount ofBoard time that I had to spend each week was about twice what I

had been told a conscientious Board member would have tocontribute. The common_ estimate, when I was consideringgoing on the Board, was about 15 to 20 hours a week. As itturned out, largely because of the unco- operative attitude ofSuperintendent Benjamin C. Willis, I found I had to spend35 to 40 hours a week. So I resigned in the spring of 1966.

"My name was submitted by the Episcopal Society for Cul-tural and Racial. Unity which called me and asked whether Iwould be interested. I had never previously given any seriousthought to going on the Board of Education, but I felt thatwith five children in the public schools, I should try to dowhat I could to help improve the schcols.

"When my name was submitted, there were, I understand,something like 145 names presented, and the Advisory Com-mission selectedapproximately 25 of these for personal inter-views. Interviews lasted 20 to 25 minutes and covered somefairly significant questions. However, some of the questionswere rather superliciak

"I had never been to a Board meeting before I became amember. All that I knew was that Chicago had a systembased on the prinqiple of citizen control of schools. I under-stood the difference between policy-making decisions andgeneral supervision by a citizen board, on the one hand, andday-to-day administration on the other hand. My father wasa professor of education, my mother was a school teacher,

24 2r

Desegregation,Political Controland QualityEducationMajor Issues

my sister is married to a college professor, and I taughtschool one year myself, so I had a feeling for the complexityof the problems. I think I appreciated that the citizen boardshould not be interfering in details and in day-to-day tech-niques used by teachers, or in the administration of a givenschool. But I felt that there were many, many problems ofpolicy, that only a citizen board could decide, and that someof these questions of policy would necessarily be reflected inapproaches to day-to-day problems by people throughout thesystem. I knew,from reading the newspapers that the 11-member Board had been cowed by Superintendent Willis, soI knew there was a personality problem. I guess at the timedaccepted the statement by Mayor Daley that he didn't inter-fere in the schools. ,

"I was aware that there was a great deal of discontent mainlyin black communities, but also in some of the more awarewhite communities. I had a feeling that the white communi-ties that were embracing Superintendent Willis and beinguncritical, and even laudatoryof the public schools, weresometimes influenced by the fact that their children werefrom a socio-economic class that would achieve well anyway,no matter what kind of school they were in. And, in manyother ways, they were influenced by the fact that they werebasically racist themselves, and they conceived the Super-intendent as being the protector of a white racist point ofview and were therefore for him.

"The most urgent problem facing the Board in 1964 was theproblem of desegregation of the Chicago Public Schools. ButI think the most basic issue facing the. Board then, as now, isthe impact that the Mayor of the City of Chicago has on theBoard. The Mayor appoints Bo'ard members, and the appoint-ments are confirmed by the City Council. The public postureof the Mayor is that he has nothing further to do with theSchools. It is my belief, however, that the Mayor has been

2 -)0

involved in certain issues confronting the Board of Education.Obviously, politics, in the sense of patronage, should never be T

permitted to enter into the Chicago Public Schools.

"There are, I believe, two situations in which politics belongin the public sr:s.hools. I think that politics is, after all, just thepresentation of alternatives to the electorate so that they canmake informed decisions. Politics also belong in the publicschools in the sense that the chief executive officer of thecity has to provide some broad leadership in public educa-tion. I think that the Mayor must provide a leadership thatwill evoke from the members of the Board of Education a farbetter performance than they have exhibited so far. I alsothink that the Mayor should help provide the members ofitheBoard of Education with the kind of staff and tools theyneed to do a good jab. That's probably an equally" important,continuing and underlying issue that has always been present.The Board doesn't have any staff, so they're at the mercy ofa mammoth, entrenched and rigid bureaucracy.

"It's perfectly clear that one of the major issues was thequality of education in the public schOols. Many, many stu-dents who graduate from the Chicago Public Schools are notable to read, or write or do arithmetic. They have not beengiven the chance to enjoy the cultural aspects of education,or to deveIop any very refined skins, either for personalenjoyment, or for making a living.

Intransigence "What happens, I think, is that teachers realize that much ofto Change the problem is beyond their control and so they, understand-

ably, become annoyed when it appears that they are the oneswho are being criticized. Many of them become so defensivethat they won't think about change and they won't accepttheir fair degree of criticism. In the Chicago Public SchoolSystem, this was complicated by the fact that the Mayor isone who believes in presenting the very best possible picture

26 2

he can of any municipal institution, such as the publicschools, and he brooks no criticism, no matter how construc-tive it may be. So from the top down through the bureauc-racy in the Central Board of Education offices, out into thedistricts, into school administrations and down through theteachers, there is a tendency to refuse to accept a fair shareof criticism and to accept the conclusion that change isnecessary.

"I think that the main problem is one of attitudes. The busi-ness community has recently decided that the public schoolsare not nearly what they should be. Ten years ago, there werenot many, persons in the business community who wouldpublicly say that. That was unfortunate. The general public,in the city, state and, nation; declares its undying loyalty tothe public school system. Ifs a part of our American tradi-tion. It makes our American Dream possible; equal oppor-tunity for all. And yet, when taxes go up, there are com-plaints, and the general public and the political leaders oftenfail to see the cost, to society in terms of lost achievement,discouragement, resulting crime, and inability of people tosupport themselves. I think when we're talking about bothquality and integration, that members of minority groupsoften fail in school simply because they're not expected toachieve. There's a terrible problem of attitudes and low ex-pectations of both teachers and school principals and to anextent, higher administration officials. These are self-fulfillingprophecies and some children can overcome that kind ofattitude, but many, indeed most, cannot.

"I came to feel that Chicago's basic problems in public edu-cation were probably the same as in every other city. But Icame to feel that Superintendent Willis was a symbol of akind of defeatist attitude on the part of the public schoolsystem, an overly defensive and disruptive attitude. He was a

27 0 (I

symbol that had to be replaced by a better administrationwhich could attack the problem in a more sensible way.

Policy "I don't think there's any'formula that you can use to sep-Formulation arate policy from administration. You just have to rely onvs. Adminis- the good sense of the people involved. To justify his actions,tration Superintendent Willis used the shibboleth that the Board

shouldn't interfere in adMinistrative matters. The Boardsimply can't get into the day-to-day administration of theschools. If there are complaints, I think the Board shouldhave some machinery set up for listening to those com-plaints. I think that the Board has been moving in that direc-tion over the years, and some people have criticized it, par-ticularly teachers. But I think it has to be done because theremust be some kind of safety valve for public opinion. It'sterribly important to many parents that their children get agood education. The more they realize it, the more frustratedand embittered they become if they think there are possibleresolutions to their problems. I spent a good deal of timeover a period of several years, working with our local highschool through the Parent-Teacher-Student Association. Ittakes an awful lot of time and effort to get anything done be-cause the local bureaucracy can outlast you. And they'resupported by the downtown bureaucracy.

"In broad terms, the curriculum is something that. I think isa policy question, that a citizen board should be deciding.After Sputnik there was, of course, a nationwide revision ofthe curriculum of public schools. I think that in many waysthese changes are technical educational questions. The kindof deployment of administrative personnel and of teachers,it seems to me, is a policy matter.

"The question of integration is a policy question which thecitizen board ought to be passing on. I think that the follow-ing should also be included: the emphasis on teaching read-

28 31

ing; allocation of budgetary resources; types of teachers;teaching personnel that should be made available in schools;the kinds of testing that should be carried out to provideindications as to where students' problems are and how theseproblems could best be met; a concern about seeing to it thattests are not used to stigmatize students; the overall questionof where schools are built. The Board should also be con-cerned, far more than it is now, with an adequate bidding andprocurement procedure, the integrity of the school princi-pals' examination and the overall administrative structure ofthe school system,

"I don't mean that the Board should necessarily initiate pol-icy in all of these areas, but these are areas where the Boardneeds to pass on suggestions that are presented to them bythe bureaucracy and the Superintendent.

Selection and "I think the present method of selection of Board members isQualifications a good one. I think it has potential for developing betterof- Board Board members than it has. The only alternative is an electedMembers school board. I think that would be worse. I think that you'd

end up with a body similar to the City Council which wouldbe just as political as the City Council, in the worst sense.What is needed is more leadership from the Mayor. The 11-member Board should be given a staff so that it isn't over-whelmed by the job. It's up to the public to push for thebest possible appointments.

"In a city as large as Chicago, I think an elected board wouldbe a disaster because it would be run, if not by the Mayor, bythe ward committeemen. Board positions would be politicalplums and they wouldn't go to anybody unless they wereloyal to the organization. I don't think you'd have as muchaccountability under an elected system, as under an ap-pointed system. But I do think that the Mayor should accepta larger degree of responsibility, both for appointments and

29

for performance. He should provide a broad type of leader-ship that won't get him involved in individual decisions veryoften, but will make it clear to the Board, the kind of perfor-mance that he expects them to give. It is true that there aremembers of the Board who are openly representing certainconstituencies. There are two seats that are generally con-sidered to be labor seats. I think it's a good idea to have per-sons from different walks of life and from different voca-tions. However, it's a shame that such emphasis has beenplaced on the fact that these are labor seats. There are otherseats that are generally considered in proportion to the ethnicgroups in Chicago, and I think that's a good idea.

"You can recite a list of qualifications which we can all agreeon, but only when the real pressure comes can you decidewhether a certain person has these qualifications. An obviousone is a concern about public school education. That's notalways been the case because there have been members of theBoard who were there simply because the Mayor wantedthem there. There have been other members there because ofbusiness c6nsiderations. I think a willingness to participate indiscussions about public schools in an orderly and mannerlyway is another prerequisite. In a city this size, Board mem-bers have to have a passionate dedication and desire toachieve the goal of a stable, integrated community. This,think, is very important and yet there are not too many, per-haps, who have really believed it is possible. They have towant an open community, throughout the city, with atten-tion paid to the needs of everybody on an equal basis toachieve a just and a stable community.

Needed "Board meetings ought to be more productive. One of the pro-Changes cedural reforms ought to be to circulate documents of impor-

tance ahead of time, to give the Board a chance to look atthem. One of the things which the members of the Boardhave been criticized for is the fact that they spent so much

30 .0 )

o.

time on procurement. I think that could be handled througha committee arrangement which wouldn't bring all the pro-curement problems before the main board. I think that, ifthere were more attention paid to procurement procedures incompetitive bidding, that the board could assure itself thateverything was being done fairly. Of course, when you have abudget as large as the Chicago Board of Education, you canwonder, legitimately, whether somebody has his hand in thetill, and so the Board must be careful about turning over pro-curement to the staff without some kind of supervision andcontrol.

"Before I was on the Board, the School Board budget hadprovided for one administrative assistant and one secretaryfor 11 members. I moved at a Board meeting that we hirethree administrative assistants; one trained in the disciplineof human relations, one trained in the discipline of publicadministration and one trained in education.

"I think that School Board members need, most of all, a paidstaff, who could put together some kind of training outlinefor School Board members who have been appointed. Thereshould be a greater lead time between the appointment andconfirmation of Board members and the actual seating whichWould make it possible to have some kind of a training pro-gram. It would also make it possible for the new Board mem-bers to attend Board meetings to see what kind of problemscome up so that they can prepare themselves to vote,on issues.

"There's a difference between a successful public schoolsystem that accomplishes objectives and one that just sur-vives. I imagine that the Chicago Public Schools will survivein the sense that the buildings will be standing and teachersand students will still be in the classrooms, but they won't bedoing the job they should be doing. The school system will

31 3,4

Minneapolis

survive in the minimal sense, but unless it's greatly improved,it's not going to do the job it should be doing.

"I would not throw out the present Board, or the presentBoard structure. I guess that I would say, however, that thereare certain Board members who I would feel have completedtheir tours of duty."

Minneapolis is predominantly a residential city built around achain áf lakes. Neighborhoods are subdivided either raciallyor socio-economically. How-ever, there are pockets of minor-ity population spread around the city. The outer ring of thecity and the first ring of the suburban area are predominantlywhite, with a wide range of socio-economic status in the pop-ulation. The,.city is unique in having the second largest urbanNative-American population in the country, next to LosAngeles. School students number about sixty thousand, 13%of whom are from minority groups.

During the period in which desegregation became an issue,the Minneapolis schools were run by a seven-member Boardof Education elected by the citizens of Minneapolis, and arelatively centralized bureaubracy headed by the Superin-tendent. Before the arrival of Dr. John B. Davis, Jr. as Super-intendent, his predecessor had delegated authority to schoolprincipals to the extent that one Board member characterizedthe system as "the czar and his lords." Superintendent Davisrevised that,pattern of administrative relationships, beginningwith experimental decentralization. Decentralization wasfully implemented in 1973-74.

Brainstorming on the possibilities for introducing school de-segregation began early in the administration of Dr. Davis. Hehad established a pattern of decisive, respected leadership onsuch issues amonr, School Board members and administrativestaff. Thus, in the academic year 1970-71 when the school's

32 3

administrative staff and School Board members took several'alternative experimental proposals to the public, the govern-ing bodies of the school system were well acquainted withthe possible alternatives for desegregation.

Over a two-year period, numerous meetings were held toassess public sentiment on the possible experimental alterna-tives that were to serve as a prelude to a full-scale plan forschool desegregation. The public hearings were often stormyaffairs held At numbers of schools around the city, in whichschool administrators at all levels and School Board memberswere called to account not only for their proposals on de-segregation, but for their general level of responsiveness tothe public. Often the discussion focused as much on ques-tions of accountability for "basic skills," reading, writing, andcomputing, and parental access to the schools and informa-tion about their children as they did on desegregation.

Finally, the experimental pairing of two elementary schoolswas approved, combining two schools in racially and socio-economically diverse areas of South Minneapolis. Althoughmany residents of the area once approached the experimentwith some trepidation, today there are waiting lists of stu-dents from all over the city who desire to become enrolled inthe paired schools.

The workings of the Minneapolis School Board are describedby two of its members. Harry Davis, presently an executiveon the publisher's staff of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune,has been on the Minneapolis Board of Education since 1968and is currently its President.

Mrs. Marilyn Borea, a housewife, is presently in the midst ofher first term as a member of the Minneapolis Board of Edu-cation. Originally touted by the media and viewed by manyas the foe of desegregation, higher taxes and bureaucratic

33 3t

RecruitmentandAppointment ofSchool BoardMembers

insensitivity, she has emerged as one Board member said, "avery bright, conscientious, good School Board member[who] has the ability to ask questions [and] does her home-work."

. Harry Davis, on the Minneapolis School Board

"In 1968 the Urban Coalition was founded by businessmen.I was working then for a division of Studebaker where I wasa Director of Personnel. They asked me to be the first Presi-dent of the Urban Coalition. I took a three-year leave of ab-sence to develop the coalition, hire staff and, get it going. Thefirst year I was there we appointed Task Forces to look atseven major areas including employment, housing, education,economic development and community relations. The secondyear we focused directly on the black community and held aconference in 1969, sponsored by the Urban Coalition. Outof the conference came a 14-person strategy committee forthe black community; I was one of the 14. We had beenworking with [Mayor] Art Naftolin to appoint minorities toboards and commissions, because we knew that there weren'tenough voters to elect them.

"In the meantime, certain political involvement had beendeveloping in the city. L. Howard Bennett was a member ofthe School Board and later was appointed to a judgeship.John Warder was appointed to the Board to take his place.Education is very important, and the black community feltwe should have representation on the policy-making body ofthe school district. Warder had to leave the School Board anda 14-man strategy committee met and recommended whoshould take John's place. We needed someone who had beenworking with the system, either through the PTA or on thetask forces, someone who was known, whose name had beenin the headlines who was respected and had the possibility of

-34 8 1"

being elected. I was chosen. I was appointed in late 1968 andthen I ran for office in the spring of 1969.

"We continued :.!-e political development in the Urban Coali-tion. I was involve(' in the PTA's; we've always been active.I served on a. number of task forces even before Superin-tendent Davis came. So I was quite familiar with the schoolsystem. r was also a product of the schools.

"I had some ideas of the responsibilities of a Board person,and I had an idea of what my responsibilities would be.Working closely with the schools I felt the major responsi-bility of the School Board member was to establish policyand procedures that would provide quality education for allthe students according to their abilities. You have a verybroad spectrum of students; from the very bright to the veryslow learner along with the handicapped and the physicallycapable. And in my opinion you cannot satisfy all of theirneeds through conventional education. I thought that myresponsibility was to establish policies to offer children thebest quality education we could give 'them. . . . knowingalso that we need money.

Integration "In 1970, when we went through our problems with integra-Begins tion, I changed my conception from quality education, to

quality-integrated education that 'should be a responsibilityof every Board member. When I went on the Board of Edu-cation, I thought about integration but I didn't put it to-gether with quality education. The more I learned aboutdesegregation plans and howwe were goinn to integrate, themore it became apparent that integration went together withquality education, not only for the black students but forwhites also. One of 'the ways that I worked outside the schoolsystem to help our cause, which I think Dr. Davis and someof the other Board members agreed with, was to encouragethe NAACP to file suit against us.

35

"I knew that when they got in Judge Larsen's court, they(the NAACP) were in a good position to beat us, and that iswhat happened. But that is the best thing that ever happenedto our plan for integration, because it got Judge Larsen to bethe monitoring guide who worked behind the scenes to keeppeople going legally.

"Our human relations guidelines were established in 1968;however, we revised them in 1970. When Bob Williams cameon as an Assistant Superintendent, the recruitment of mi-nority teachers became a policy quite naturally. And thepeople we were recruiting were good quality.

"Superintendent Davis is not a hard person to work with,because he is a very dedicated, honest and good superintend-ent; in fact, excellent. He saw.the value of an integratedteaching staff and we stated moving people."

Affirmative '' [On the issue of affirmative action] the business commu-Action nity was one of the major actors. It probably should haveEfforts been the labor unions, but they put up the opposition. At

the time the affirmative action and integration plans werebeing considered the majority of the Board were Republi-cans Stu Rider; Duke Johnson; Florence Lehman; DickAllen; also David Preus, who was a Democrat with Republi-can endorsement; Frank Adams, who .-tas a labor represen-tative; and myself. I think that the business community wassaying, through the Republicans on the Board, that in theircorporations they were to implement affirmative action::,ndthat it would be a good example if the school system woulddo so in hiring and promotion. I think that had a lot of influ-ence. I can specifically point to Dean McNeal of Pillsbury,Jim Sommers of General Mills, Steve Keating of Honeywell.I cite these people because General Mills supports the LincolnLearning Center and Honeywell the Bryant YES Center. .

These three corporations along with the Minneapolis Star and

36 3 ;

Peavey and Northwestern Bank are major contributors ofmoney and materials to the Minneapolis public schools.

"At,present, we're reaching almost the last milestone in termsof integration, both students, teachers and staff, at a levelwhere they can show signs of achievement. If black childrenwant to be teachers, they have to be able to see an example, ablack teacher or a principal. We've passed a good number ofmilestones in reaching our goal. We've proven to the mostradical opposition of integration that it can work the way weare trying to approach it. We're not out of the woods by along shot, however. We made a gocid start the Field-Halepairing, the clustering, the alternative education doingthese things along with integration. A lot of people say thatthe Minneapolis school system is doing something and it isworking, and our children are benefiting from it. People arelooking for an aggressive new education, and that's a respon-sibility that I, too, have taken on.

"We then looked at the 10-year building program, whichwould cost about ninety million dollars; now even more thanthat. The Bethune school, Franklin, South, North, elemen-tary community schools; there was a lot of building. Theschool system had a responsibility in its building programs toconsider integration. I convinced [those responsible] to appointan affirmative action officer for the building program, whichthey did. We were able to get minority contractors to workon building the schools, minority people working on the job,and minority children out of vocational schools to teachthem how to be bricklayers, carpenters, etc."

Accessto "I have a background in administration, and often I'm con-Personnel suited by Superintendent Davis and other members of his staff

relating to differences that arise within a school system. I sug-gest minority people for certain positions, but I don't thinkany of the other Board members suggest changes in staff.

37

I'm consulted by minority staff people while very few othersare consulted by these people unless they come through Dr.

9 Davis. He and I have a relationship and he doesn't feel un-comfortable at all if a staff person does consult me."

Orientation of "[The Taxpayer's Party, a third political party in Minneap-New Members olis, supported two school board candidates who wereand Budget elected] . . . and they were going to do something to re-issues duce taxes, their major issue was to go in and cut the budget.

But these people did not understand that the school systemwas a multi-milliondollar operation that produces the most-important product of any million-dollaroperation; well-educated children. They didn't understand that.

"I don't know how we're going to cope with that becauseissues often get people elected. Maybe were going to have todo a more effective job in orienting' new Board members asthey come in, and help them overcome the commitmentsthey've made to their constituents. We have to make themaware immediately of the responsibility they have acceptedas Board members. -

"We're trying to do that. When I came aboard, there reallywasn't an orientation period by the Board for new Boardmembers; now, we do take time and spend a day or twoorienting them in their areas of responsibility by going overthe personnel policies, the budgets, etc. If you folldw thesystem at all, you know that since 1968 the budget has be-come a readable document, an understandable one-. I thinkthat the influence came not only from Dr. Davis but frommembers of the Board Stu Rider, Dick Allen, David Preus,Florence Lehman, Duke Johnson and more recently JaneStarr who know that their responsibility is to make surethat their communication with the public about the taxdollar is understandable. I think that the influence of thepeople on the Board, and the way they are trained and

38 41

oriented when they come on is very helpful. By sitting on theMinnesota School Board Association, the National SchoolBoard Association and the Great City Council of Schools,made up' of the 16 largest school districts in the country, weare able to encourage.them to hold workshops for new Boardmembers. That happens during conventions.

Curricula and "Many school system staff people don't want to assumeStaff responsibilities in certain areas because they may disagreeCompetence with Board philosophy or an area presents a problem to them

or creates confrontations. But, we need to have staff who canrelate, and We have some problems in that area. I don't saythat all staff [can't relate] , because I think that the Minne-apolis school system has many teachers who are good people,mean well and are well-prepared, but that's not everybody. Ithink sometimes a small group of people can do a lot of harmto many people.

Community "From time to time we appoint task forces to take on spe-Input cific responsibilities and to advise us. These committees have

brought back considerable information and have helped usperform better. One project is stilt in progress the Account-ability Project (a group of citizens who are analyzing theschools' effectiveness in educating children). Their informa-tion has been unbelievably valuable. They have spotted somethings which we had looked at but not seen. They made it

, obvious that we had to deal with certain situations. We haveinvolved much of the community. Thessecond thing [We havedone to involve the community] is decentralization allowing administrators and faculty in a specific area to deal withparents on programs in those areas.

"We have received some very valuable assistance from'com-munities. Each area West, North and East is different inapproach. School people are listening to and evaluating theirinput because they are educators. Decentralization has made

39

areas aware that the School Board is trying to find out if ourdistrict is healthy, ancLit is providing the input to see that itis healthy. All the parts are in order. Our system is doing agood job in bringing in the community; we can improve,however.

Past "One of our major stumbling blocks is in the area of pastContracts' agreements (union contracts, etc.). These problems can only

be corrected by committed and aggressive Board members.We have to play a major role and look realistically at thechanges that have to be made in order for us to carry out ourresponsibilities: There is, of course, a chance you take be-cause you will be challenging people who would be suppor-tive of you in your election.".

. . . Marilyn Borea on the Minneapolis School Board

Budget "We had budget briefings on the average of once a week,more or less, sometimes every day for five days, and we metlast year on Saturdays from eight in the morning until noonor one o'clock during January, February, March, working onthe budget Actually there wasn't enough time. I think untilthe last few years the budget has been pretty well acceptedby the Board, but over half of the members, who are noteven anti-budget, question certain priorities; for example,should we put more money into special education and lessinto something else? This coming year we'll spend even moretime op the budget; we'll probably start working with theadministration in September.

Administrative "We try not to become too involved but-sometimes you hap-Details pen to know a lot about one given area and it's hard not to

become involved. I think one thing I did a couple of yearsago [was helpful] . I served on an evaluation committee inpurchasing, so I would know the process that the Departmentof City Purchasing uses. [This Department does our pur-

40

4,i

0

chasing.] I would then know the process and how things areevaluated all the way down the line. I think one of the otherBoard members has done that, too, but I think an experiencelike that is very helpful because one realizes the time that hasgone into purchasing just one item. If one hasn't been in-volved in the process, it might be easy to think that therewasn't much that went into it.

Information and "We have been having community meetings for about a year.Decision- A lot of information, by the time it gets to the Board, isMaking watered down; no, it's compacted. Many times it's-assumed

that we really, don't need all of that information and oftenwe don't because we have a staff to take care of these mat-ters. But [there are thme situations where] it's difficult toknow whether-the right.decision- is being made without hav-ing all of the background information.

"I think one of the reasons [for the watering down of infor-mation] is that people in the administration feel that theyare hired to present background information and that theBoard is supposed merely to set policy. Historically, thisBoard has beeh very content to do that. But in the last threeand a half years, we have had five new Board members whoare more interested in knowing what considerations wentinto recommendations than they might have been in the past.I don't mean this as degrading; I think it is because politicsand decision-making are becoming more open. If we are goingto make decisions in such an open manner, we have to havethe information.

Educational "The only problem I have with educational innovation is thatInnovations we should not move too fast. We realize that what is workingand Program in one area [of the city] might be due to factors peculiar toPlanning that community. We want to take these factors into account

when studies are being made and statements being circulatedthat these [new programs] are great. Basically, I support

41 4 ,1

Access toSchoolPersonnel

[alternatives in education] but the Board shouldn't adopt allalternatives unless it's sure that these alternatives are what agiven community wants; if the majority of a communitywants them, then they will work. If the majority doesn'twant them, I don't care how good they are, I don't thinkthey will really work.

"Board members or elected officials can look at an issue and .try to ask the kinds Of questions they think the people theyare representing would ask. Many times other Board memberswill ask questions and a member of the administration willget another view of an issue.

"I guess it is human nature that if a Board member calls aprincipal to determine whether the school Or the parentswere wrong in a particular instance, the principal will take,anextra ten minutes to check out the facts. I try to use discre-tion [in calling principals] . I say that I'm not taking sides,that I don't know the situation, and I don't know what's in-volved, but I would appreciate it if he would check some factsfor me. I'm sure that carries more weight than if a parentcalls, but I have to be tactful and try not to get carried awayby this kind of involvement. However, I do not think thatparents would call a Board member unless they really feltthere is a problem. Sometimes someone calls and you reallythink that they're exaggerating, but you find out that theywere correct.

"For example, a friend of my husband has a child who wouldbe five when school started. The mother was a formerteacher. She had called me and said she wanted to have herdaughter tested, but that the school wouldn't test her. Theprincipal of the local school would not agree to her testingat the administration building. She said she was sure that herchild read at least at a first-grade level. I called down to theBoard and they took care of it. I didn't really expect her to

424i)

read at a first- or second-grade level because she wasn't fiveyet, but it turned out that she was reading at a third-gradelevel. It only took a few minutes of my time, but it was veryimportant. Lots of things like that come up. When I was firstelected, I would let people talk over the phone for 45 min-utes. Now I have learned that you can be just as effective infive minutes.

School "I think schools still need to make more of an effort to be-Accountability come involved with parents. The main thing is making theand Parental people in the community feel involved in the school. I knowInvolvement this is something that is being worked on When you have a

school- community meeting and send out a flyer, manypeople are going to be shy about coming in because theydon't want to raise questions before a whole room of peoplethat can be identified as their child's- problem. Many edu-cators feel that in essence this is why so few show up. Ifpeople are pleased with the way their children are doing,their neighbors usually know about it and their feelings re-sult in support for legislators and School Board people whoare trying to get things done. Sometimes people will vote noon an issue because of the little dissatisfactions and whatthey hear in their own partiCular neighborhood school.Those things really can mushroom.

"We [the School Board] don't need more power; we have thepower to do practically anything. The problem is whether ornot the staff favors particular poSitions. The power to make adecision doesn't really carry anything out."

434 6

Chapter 3Some Commentson School BoardPractices

In light of the preceding accounts of the operations of theChicago and Minneapolis school boards, how do they com-pare as "democratid" or "effective" institutions? What tech-niques did board members use to absorb and generatechange? Did they demonstrate the will and capacity to ab-sorb change? Did they attempt to generate change throughinnovation? Did they employ democratic practices in theirdeliberations? Did they have the resources necessary to dealwith issues of bureaucratization and desegregation?

The school boards of Chicago and Minneapolis, as portrayedin these interviews with a few board members, present con-trasting styles of operation. However, it would be unwar-ranted to conclude that either Board approached an ideal"democratic" or "effective " process. What can be said isthat Chicago's Board, in the view of the Board members inter-,viewed, was unable to be responsive to the demands of thepublic it served. The Minneapolis Board appeared to haveattempted to understand and respond to changing circum-

'stances, including the need to desegregate its schools, but itwas not always effective as a manager of the bureaucracy.

Recognition of The Chicago Board of Education, like many others, seemedNeed for unable even to deal with the issue of desegregation ofChange schools. Their actions suggest an inability to deal with the

uncompromising positions of the Superintendent,and the-Mayor. Under an outmoded and inflexible system of finan-cial management and delivery of education services, Boardmembers were unable to deal with problems directly.

Board members and the Superintendent in Chicago seem notto have been able to assess and adjust to the drastic changeswhich had taken place in the city and its school system. Chi-cago had grown enormously since the 1940's. Over a 20-yearperiod, the number of poor whites and minorities flowinginto the city from the South changed not only the composi-

444

tion of the city's neighborhoods, but also the demands on theschool system, both quantitatively and qualitatively: Boardmembers, operating out of a context which did not take intoaccount these changes, seemed unable to respond to theneeds of the population. The school system had grown inthis same 20-year period into a multi-billion dollar corpora-tion with commensurate-organizational complexity.

...-

The Minneapolis school board was at least willing, if not al-ways able, to grapple.with the problems of desegregation andbureaucratization. Citizens participation was recognized andencouraged to a far, greater extent than in Chicago.

Board members had a clear understanding of the need to de-segregate schools. In fact, the issue was one of the majoritems on the agendas of the Board and the Superintendent.Furthermore, under the urging of people like Harry Davis,Board members perceived the interrelationship between qual-ity and integrated education, and (although its impact to dateis uncertain) the Board and the Superintendent implementedplans for the administrative decentralization of the schoolsystem with the intention of making the system more respon-sive to staff and community concerns. (Administrative decen-tralization was implemented in Chicago under Superintend-ent James Redmond; however, if one is to judge from theassessment of Warren Bacon, its impact in reducing the illeffects of bureaucratization has been questionable.)

Out of the unrest of the sixties emerged a new cadre ofminority leaders, in groups such as the Urban Coalition.These leaders, Harry Davis among them, worked to articulateand publicize the 'nature of educational problems in Minne-

apolis. Because the Board was accessible, participants in theCoalition and members of the business community were ableto make Board members, aware of the students' needs. Thus,when Superintendent Davis and Board members initiated

45 4

Openness toPublicOpinion

action to desegregate the schools and cope with problems ofbureaucratization, the foundations of awareness had beenbuilt among the Board members.

A majority of the members of the School Board and theSuperintendent in Chicago were unable to incorporate thethinking of community organizations such as the Coor-dinating Council of Community Organizations. Since mostmembers of the Board were unable to incorporate parentaland community concerns into their own views, teacherswere discouraged in their efforts to seek new ways ofcollaborating with students, parents and the communityto find creative alternatives designed to deal effectively withthe increasingly diverse needs of students. The School Boardutilized the services of a consulting firm to make recom-mendations for the updating of the services delivery systemsbut utilized very little of the findings and suggestions in thefinal report.

Citizens felt inhibited in the formation of realistic goals byminimal access to information. When they did formulategoals, they were confronted with tremendous opposition tothe presentation of these goals to the School Board, as indi-cated by the numerous protests and boycotts. Citizens feltthat when goals and/or preferences were voiced, little con-sideration was given them by the School Board.

At times citizens were reluctant to express concerns becauseof their fear of possible economic, political or social reprisalsfrom the political organization in power. The School Boardmember whose business was threatened if he voted for War-ren Bacon for President of the Board was cited as an ex-ample. The Mayor's selection process effectively insulatedthe poard from public input involving recruitment or finalselection of Board members. His screening committee effec-tively narrowed the field of possible candidates and limited

46

the expression of ideas (as Bacon noted, he was eligiblelargely because he had "no skeletons in his closet"). Withinthe school system the Superintendent effettively controlledaccess to information about the schools. In fact, as noted, onone occasion when he was subpoenaed, he avoided beingserved by leaving the premises. At School Board meetings itwas, at best, difficult to get controversial issues on thg. agendaand opposition to the Mayor on a substantive issue entlan-gered reappointment.

In Minneapolis, however, there appeared to have been a con-tinuing pattern of efforts to afford citizens input and impact.Numerous citizens' groups, such as the West High School.Community Organization, the Accountability Task Forceand the Task Force on Women in the Schools, had access toand impact on the deliberations and policies of the SchoolBoard. Citizens indicated their goals through elections, publichearings and the formation of a third party. Citizens oftencalled School Board members because they perceived them asresponsive public officials.

There was little evidence in Minneapojis of punishment forthe exercise of one's preferences. Despite the 1970-71 con-troversy over the dismissal of a teacher (who, many main-tained, was dismissed because of his divergent views ondesegregation), the School Board held numerous hearings onthe case, some specifically for the public to air its views onthis issue:

The School Board and the Superintendent and his staff haveoften "gone to the public. " 'A recently passed state openmeeting regulation forced School Board members to maketheir deliberations and decisions even more visible by con-siderably narrowing the scope of those matters which couldbe dealt with in executive session. As Harry Davis and StuartRider (an ex-school Board member and Board President) indi-

47 ti

cated in interviews, businessmen, the Chamber of Commerceand the Urban Coalition played significant roles in importanteducational issues, such as the teachers' strike settlement of1970 and the desegregation of schools. Nevertheless, thereare school system staff members and community represen-tatives who still maintain that the bureaucracy prevents aclear understanding of the decision-making process.

Citizens in Minneapolis join and form organizations to ad-vance their positions both in the political and economic arenasand in the ethicational system. This is due in part to the factthat Minneapolis has a relatively powerless Mayor and a strongCity Council system of municipal government. AlthOugh theSchool Board must seek the support of the Mayor, the CityCouncil and a rurally dominated State Legislature for schoolbudget levy increases, Board members are held accountablethrough the electoral process. School Board members areelected at large rather than from specific p7iltical subdiv-visions, and they tend to run on a specific/set of issues. Theyrepresent various segments of the city-wide constituencieswho have voted for them and members of the public haveready access to them both privately and through public hear-ings. For example,. Marilyn Borea noted the hours she hadspent on the phone with friends, school staff and constitu-ents who desired to have their views made known to theSchool Board.

According to Harry Davis-and Marilyn Borea, any citizen canmount a campaign for the office, the chief drawback beingthe cost. Characteristically in recent years, these electionshave appeared to be fair, open and bard-fought contests cen-tered around the issues of desegregation, taxes and account-ability.

Both the electoral process and the character of the,Boardmembers seem to have led to consistent responsiveness to

48 5i

Leadership

citizen concerns, In fact, as Harry Davis noted, Board mem-bers are often called to task in public hearings on specific,positions they have taken on educational issues. Clearly, theelection of Marilyn Borea was, in part, the result of citizenresponse to perceived bureaucratic insensitivity.

The Minneapolis Board of Education initiated a'number ofexperimental and alternative programs in response to specificproblems: The Southeast alternative school district, the ex-perimental pairing of elementary schools and the clusteringof schools to remediate segregated attendance patterns. More-over, while their effectiveness has been questioned by partici-pants in the programs, the efforts of the administrative staffto enact Human Relations and Affirmative Action plans offerfurther evidence of a search for alternatives. Finally, theBoard initiated a number of task forces and public hearingswhich School Board members have either sponsored or usedas vehicles for responding to community concerns.

One apparent difference between these two school systemslies in the nature of administrative leadership. In Mr. Bacon'sview, Superintendent Willis focused his leadership on issuessurrounding the need for new facilities. In fact, Mr. Willis wascriticized rightly or wrongly for contributing to the continu-ation of the ill effects of bureaucratization and segregatedschooling through lack of focus on other areas of concern. Innotable,contrast, all three School Board members interviewedin Minneapolis clearly indicated that Superintendent Davishas offered respected, positive and constructive leadership ona broad range of policy issues. Specifically, Harry Davispointed to the role Superintendent Davis played in workingwith the Board, the Urban Coalition, the. NAACP and thecourt to facilitate desegregation plans.

It is difficult to determine exactly who was making educa-tional decisions in Chicago. Was it the School Board? Was it

49 ,

Superintendent Willis and other school officials? The absenceof a clearly defined system of educational decision-makingmade it difficult to know whom to hold accountable. If thoseresponsible for educational decision-making are neither vis-ible nor accountable, to whom are they responsible? Whowere the constituents they served? In Chicago, citizens per-ceived no vehicles through which the voices of the many

"constituencies of the city could gain a hearing, let alone begiven fuli and fair opportunity to express their preferences tothose who represented them.

In Minneapolis, both School Board members and the Super-intendent and his staff perceived themselves and are per-ceived as being accountable. Certainly, there were a numberof instances in which neither visibility nor accountabilitywas obtained. In comparison with the exercise of power inChicago, however, the style of educational governance inMinneapolis was clearly more democratic.

Administrative However; many similarities exist between board practices inDetail the cities. Both boards tend to become preoccupied with

administrative detail. In ChiCago the Board attempted tosimplify matters by having omnibus reports. However,according to Mr. Bacon, meetings soon became dominatedby these reports. Mrs. Borea remarked on the tendency toget involved in administrative details, especially those sheknew something about, such as purchasing. In Chicago, dur-ing the sixties, Superintoindent Willis threatened to resignif the School Board did not extricate itself from administra-tive decision-making. In Minneapolis, one Board membernoted that when executive 'sessions were used mord fre-quently, Superintendent Davis would ask, in sei-many words,why they hired him if they were devoting so much time tothe administration of the schools.

50

5

A

Both school systems continue to face the problems createdby bureaucratization and the need for desegregation. TheMinneapolis School Board and Superintendent Davis have,however, demonstrated both the will and the capacity toacknowledge and begin to formulate alternatives for dealingwith the interrelated problems considered here, while inChicago, at least until 1973, when he left the Board of Edu-cation, Warren Bacon felt there was little evidence of eitherwill or capacity to acknowledge or act upon the problemsevolving from a highly bureaucratized and segregated schoolsystem.

515 4

Chapter 4ConclusionsandRecommendations

School board members are chosen in various ways in variouscommunities, and arguments will undoubtedly continue asto whether selection (by a mayor and/or a nominating panel)or direct election is the method better designed to placeresponsible and informed citizens in charge of a school sys-tem. Recruitment techniques will also, therefore, vary fromplace to place, but regardless of the process involved, certaincriteria for membership on school boards would appear tobe essential.

Potential school board members, for instance, should have agenuine concern for the welfare of all students served by thesystem, a clear conception of the function and role of publiceducation, and some first-hand experience in local educa-tional affairs. While some attention will inevitably be paid tothe desire or ability of a given candidate to represent a cer-tain segment of the population an ethnic, religious orgeographical group, thee is little to recommend a strictquota system of school board representation. Members ofthe board of education must be able to rise above sectarianpressures and to act in the interest of the entire community.

However, in those communities where a majority of the stu-dent population represents a minority group, the LTI takesthe position that representation on the board of educationfor that minority should be significant. The policies andpractices of the school district affect most seriously thestudents actually attending the public schools. And the stu-dents, as the ones who will suffer or benefit to the degreethat their interests are taken into account, should be rep-resented.

No matter how school board members are recruited orchosen, however, much remains to be said and done on thesubject of their orientation and training. As was amplydemonstrated in the interviews with the Chicago and Minne-

rI.)52

apolis board members, their tasks are enormously compli-cated by their inability (even when willing to learn) tograsp the inherent conflict of their dual relationship to boththe public and to the educational bureaucracy. Thrust into asituation in which they must listen to and sort out the manyand varied demands from outside the system, and simultane-ously understand and direct a massive organization; mostschool board members are HI-prepared to serve as effectivepolicy-makers.

Despite their responsibility for decisions involving schoolpersonnel, students and millions of tax dollars, little or noattention has been paid to ensuring that members of theschool boards have even minimal preparation for undertakingtheir tasks. The Recruitment- LTI offers, therefore, a numberof recommendations for, school board member orientationand training. While local conditions size and compositionof the community, among other things will necessarilyindicate modifications in both diagnosis of problem areas andin suggested solutions, the LTI believes that the proposalsoutlined below deserve careful study and appropriate adop-tion.

Before proceeding to identffication of school board trainingneeds and possible resources to meet them, some furtherexploration of school board functions may prove helpful. Ashas been stated earlier, school boards are required to be botheffective representatives 'of the public and efficient policy-makers for the educational bureaucracy. This necessarily .ptaces,them in the unenviable position of having constantlyto assimilate input from many sources, to translate that inputinto coherent changes in or additions to existing policy, toidentify the specific aspects of the bureaucracy throughwhich those changes must be effected, and, finally, todemonstrate to the public that the called-for changes are, infact, being made.

53 t)

The diagram on page 55 is one possible portrayal of the com-plex and continuous process in which school board membersare involved, as they attempt to absorb and to generatechange.

For instance, suppose the school board, in public hearings, isasked to change its basal reading series from one portraying awhite, middle-class family to an urban, multi-ethnic orientedseries. Such requests may come not only from outsidesources .parents or community groups but also from con-cerned teachers and curriculum speeialists within the bu-reaucracy. The ultimate resolution of the problem may wellrequire two "rounds" ofithe decision-making circle (as por-trayed in the diagram): the first, an agreement in principlethat such a change is desirable, followed by study of theexisting materials, the availability of new books, the expenseof making changes, the needed ancillary programs (such asstaff development to train teachers in ,the use of new mate-rials). Returning to the "public" with a report on the costsand other factors involved in the new program, the'schoolboard must then again hear from the public before taking thesecond step of deciding to institute that program. After theboard has determined to do so, it is then responsible formandating the required changes as a policy and seeing thatthey are carried out within the school systems

This case is a discrete curriculum change and relatively non-controversial and such an example is, of course, almost toosimple to be representative of the actual agenda. of schoolboards, large or small, which are cluttered with hundreds ofproblems in varying stages of resolution. However, theprocess presented here is one which can and should be util-ized in considering all issues which come before boards.Board members' ability to deal with this myriad of issues canbe enhanced considerably if some effort is made to providethem with both initial and on-going training designed to assist

54 i

Students

Business

Staff

8 .

Report onEstablishmentof New Programs

4

ReportonFeasibility

PersonnelPractices

BudgetProcess

55

Representatives of the Public

Community

5

GetFeedback

1

ReceiveInput

SCHOOLBOARD

3

Study Factsand Issues

7

Mandate NeededChanges

Parents

Government

Politicians

6Make PolicyDecision

2AgreetoStudy

PhysicalPlant

Curriculum

Policy-Makers for the Bureaucracy

t ) CS

them to receive and assimilate information and to translate itinto viable school programs and practices.

Such training possibilities may be roughly divided into twocategories, corresponding to the two roles in which schoolboards find themselves: representatives of the public and

'decision-makers for the bureaucracy., The charts on pages58-67 outline necessary skills, possible resources andsuggested training activities in each of these two categories.

Local conditions and abilitiOs of school board members willdetermine school board training needs and availability ofresources as well as the nature and frequency of orientationand training programs. It is the position of the RecruitmentLTI, however, that all newly appointed or elected boardmembers should receive minimal preparation for undertakingtheir tasks and that experienced board members should begiven opportunities immediately to enhance their abilitiesto function as representatives of-the public and bureaucraticdecision-makers. The charts on pages 58-67 outline sug-gested basic orientation and training programs which, withdiscussion and planning, can be revised and implemented bymost school boards in this country.

in most school districts the superintendent and his staff willultimately assume responsibility for the development of aviable orientation and training program for board members.However, in those districts where the board has a staff of itsown we would recommend that they be directly involved inplanning for and participate in all sessions. The type of train-ing proposed in this paper would be invaluable for boardstaff persons who are-charged with the responsibility of main-taining contact. with the school bureaucracy and the com-munity.

56

4

School board members, in short, need to be skilled in dealingwith Beth people and facts. They require, above all, a processfor assimilating new information and translating it into viablenew directions for their school systems. The resources existto provide school boards with necessary orientation andtraining. It is the position of the Recruitment LTI that theseresources must be mobilized to assist school board membersto deal more effectively and efficiently with their criticalresponsibilities. The decision to identify, articulate and solvetraining needs by Utilizing available resources rests withmembers of school boards thethselves and with state and na-tional organizations which represent school boards and theirmembers.

.

.57

Orientation and Training for School Board Members

As Representatives of the Public and School Community

Ability to function effectivelyand efficiently as a representative, democratic group; understand therole and function of the community and be aware of the legal and social mandates and constraints ona local board of education.

Needed Skills Possible Resources Training ActiVities

1 Ability to Utilize Group Pro-cess Skillsa.Focus on factors facilitatingand blocking effective workand problem-solving in thegroup including leadershipstyles, communication pat-terns, decision-Making andconflict resolution.b. .

Increase awareness of and sen-sitivity to issues of power andthe dangers and opportunitiesof power. To develop moreenlightened, sensitive, effec-tive and responsible uses ofpower.c.Maximize utilization of humanresources for the accomplish-ment of organiiational tasksand improve the quality of lifein the organization.d.Know the rules of Parliamen-tary Procedure and how best torun small and large meetings

58

Consultants, change agents ortrainers wno are expert in assistinggroups and systems work throughtheir problems and define theirown needs through reflection andauthentic feedback.

Experts may be found in psychol-ogy *departments of local univer-sities and consulting firms. Locallybased National Training Labora-tory (NTL) Associates may also beutilized.

Local school administrators whohave experience as consultantsor trainers.

Group Process, problem-solving,human relations .and communi-cations laboratories to developgreater openness and inter-personal competence can be or-ganized as off-site "retreats" orperiodic in-house workshops.

Board members, individually or insmall groups, can also attend labsorganized and run by the NationalTraining Laboratory. Institute forApplied Behavioral Science.

Brainstorming sessions on selectedtopics to suggest innovative prob-lem solutions while deliberatelyrestraining critical judgment.

Orientation and Training for School Board Members

As Representatives of the Public and School Community

Atirtity to function effectively and efficiently as a representative, democratic group; understand therole and function of the community and be aware ofthe legal and social mandates and constraints ona local board of education.

Needed Skills Possible Resources Training Activities

2, Understanding of the Sociol-ogy of Educationa.Be aware of the demographicand cultural changes whichhave occurred in the past 20years and how populationmovements and changes affectcommunities and their schools.b.Be familiar with the culturalstatus of the community in-cluding racial, generationaland religious composition andconflicting views.c.Understand prevailing econom-ic status of public school par-ents and'community at largeand the effect this has on taxbase and student achievement.d.Know ouliticui climate locally, .statewide and natiroally andits effects on public educa-tion.

59

Community leaders, univer-sity personnel and directors ofservice organizations and agen-cies expert in social, politicaland economic conditions in thethe community.

Representatives of student gov-ernment and student rights or-ganizations.

Local civil rights organizationsand agencies.

Representatives from govern-ment agencies which collect andanalyze information relating tocommunity concerns.

Local parents' organizations.

Staff members of Regional Edu-tional Laboratories.

Teachers or administratorsknowledgeable on specific com-munity problems.

Representatives from local CivilLiberties Union and CommunityLegal Services.

Mini-courses, workshops and conferences can be planned aroundindividual topics.

Regular course offerings at localcolleges and universities.

Action research involving a sub-committee of the board, univer-sity social scientists and com-munity people to study, diagnoseand evaluate existing communityconditions and problems.

One-day seminars on selectedtopics.

Orientation and Training for School Board Members

As Representatives of the Public and School Community

Ability to function effectively and efficiently as a representative, democratic group; understand therole and function of the community and be aware of the legal and social mandates and.constraints ona local board of education.

Needed Skills Possible Resources Training Activities

3. Knowledge of Legal Mandatesand Constraintsa.

Know the major provisions ofthe state education code andrecent court rulings affectingeducation locally and na-tionally.b.Be aware of existing schoolpolicies and procedures relatingto relationships with the com-munity at large, students andparents.'c.Be aware of the financial re-sources available to the schooldistrict and problems relatingto school financing.d.Be familiar with the level ofFederal aid to the district andthe disposition of these fundsto support local school pro-gram.

60

Experts on educational law andfinance including university pro-fessors in departments of educa-tional administration, law firmsand Regional Educational Lab-oratories.

Representatives from local CivilLiberties Union and CommunityLegal Services

Local school administrators andthe district's legal department.

Representatives from governmen-tal agencies dealing with Federalfunding for local school districts,the Regional Office or the Head-quarters Office of the Departmentof Health, Education and Welfare.

State and national organizationswhich represent school boardsand board members, such as theNational Association of SchoolBoards.

Mini-courses, workshops, insti-tutes and conferences on schoollaw and finance.

Regular course offerings at localcolleges and universities.

One-day seminars on selectedtopics.

Orientation and Training for School Board Members

As Representatives of the Public and School Community

Ability to function effectively and efficiently as a representative, democratic group; understand therole and function of the community and, be aware of the legal and social mandates and constraints ona local board of education.

Needed Skills Possible Resources Training Activities

4. Awareness of Groups Appeal-ing to the Boarda.

Increase awareness of neigh-borhood and communitygroups including home andschool associations, parents andteachers associations, ethnicgrouips, etc.b.Increase sensitivity of allschool system organizationsincluding the teachers' union,students' organizations, admin-istrators' organizations, etc.c.Be aware of the roles playedby and the resources availablefrom various business andlabor groups such as the Na-tional Association of Manu-facturers, the local AFL-CIOcentral labor body, etc,d.Understand the nature androle of political and govern-mental groups including localpolitical parties and sectariangroups.

n4

Formal and informal leadersfrom groups dealing with schoolproblems and issues includingbusiness and labor leaders, stu-dent representatives, parents,community and political leaders.

Experts from university sociol-ogy departments.

Local parents' organization

Locally based labor educators andexperts in labor-management rela-tions at local colleges and univer-sities, consulting firms and lawfirms.

Representatives from local stu-dent rights organizations.

Representatives from local civilrights organizations and agencies.

Mini-courses, workshops, insti-tutes and conferences to air viewsof groups toward selected topics.

Collaborative action inquiry withsubcommittee of board and vari-ety of community groups diag-nosing and analyzing selectedproblems.

Simulated collective bargainingsessions designed to familiarizeboard members with process,issues and parties in contract ne-gotiations.

Inter-organizational visiting forsubcommittees of board to pro-vide broader perspective of othergroups and agencies.

Orientation and Training for School Board Members

As Bureaucratic Decision-Makers

Understand the role and function of each part of the educational bureaucracy, the formal and informalorganizations which run the schools, in order to set educational policy

Needed Skills Possible Resources Training Activities

1 Knowledge of Personnel Poli-cies and Proceduresa.

Understand the policy-makingrole of a board of educationand its relationship with thesuperintendent, the schoolstaff, parents; community and'students.b.Be aware of policies and pro-cedures on recruiting, hiring,promoting and evaluatingmembers of the school staff.c.Be familiar with the collectivebargaining process and recentnegotiating trends locally andnationally and the local agree-ment.d.Understand the concept ofEqual Employment Oppor-tunity and be familiar withthe district's affirmative actionplan and model plans devel-oped by governmental agen-cies and advocacy organiza-tions.

62

Experts from local college anduniversity departments of edu-tional administration.

Experts from Regional Educa-tional Laboratories and theRegional HEW Office.

Legal experts from local lawfirms.

Knowledgeable board members.

Local school administrators.

Labor-management experts fromlocal universities, law firms andgovernmental agencies.

Representatives from the EqualEmployment Opportunity Com-mission, the Office of FederalContract Compliance and the Re-gional Office of the Departmentof Health, Education and Welfarewho deal with affirmative actionin school systems.

Mini-courses, workshops and one-day seminars on selected topics.

Regular course offerings at localcolleges or universities.

Simulated collective bargainingexercises designed to increaseunderstanding of process, issues,and parties.

Orientation and Training for School Board Members

As Bureaucratic Decision-Makers

Understand the role and function of each part of the educational bureaucracy, the formal and informalorganizations which run the schools, in order to set educational policy

Needed Skills Possible Resources Training Activities

2. Understanding of Curriculum,Personnel and StudentAchievementa.

Know what courses of studyand programs are being offeredfrom K to 12 with emphasison recent innovative programsdesigned to meet needs ofunder-achieving and handi-capped students.b.Be familiar with school staffin the system including cen-tral office administrators,school principals and selectedteachers.c.Be conversant with localstudies and evaluations ofstudent achievement and ofselected projects and na-tional studies of educationalprogr6ms, innovations andtrends.d.Know what textbooks andother instructional materialsare being used in the schools,their age, value and cost andhow they compare with othersimilar materials on the market.

63

Local school administrators fromthe divisions of curriculum devel-ment and research.

Local student government andstudent rights organizations.

Knowledgeable board members.

University personnel from depart-ments of educational administra-tion, psychology and educationalresearch.

Local representatives of book.companies.

Representatives from local CivilLiberties Union and CommunityLegal Services.

Representatives from local civilrights organizations.

Mini-courses, workshops, and in-stitutes on selected topics.

Action research involving a sub-committee of the board, univer-sity professors and school staffto review program efforts andand student achievement.

One-day seminars on selectedtopics.

Regular course offerings at localcolleges and universities.

Visit schools and classrooms onvarious levels.

Attend regular faculty meetings at'selected schools in the system.

Orientation and Training for School Board Members

As Bureaucratic Decision-Makers

Understand the role and function of each part of. the educational bureaucracy, the formal and informalorganizations which run the schoold, in order to set educational policy

Needed Skills Possible Resources Training Activities

3. Understanding of Budget andAccounting Proceduresa.

Know how the school systemfits into municipal, state andFederal financial structures.Be able to see the school dis-trict in the context of largerfiscal systems in order toanticipate levels of supportfrom each.b.Know what a budget is, how afiscal year is planned, how thebudget is prepared and theassumptions, timing and infor-mation essential to the budgetprocess,c.Know precisely how the bud-get operates.d.Be familiar With managementdecision-making procedureswhich emphasize the settingof goals, objectives andstrategies, Management byObjectives and PERT.

64

Experts on school budgeting andfinance from focal universiiy edu-cational administration depart.ments, Regional Educational Lab-oratories, governmental agenciesand private accounting firms.

Local school administrators.

Representatives from communitygroups which have taken aninter-est in the school budget.

Knowledgeable board members.

Representatives from local CM('Liberties Union and CommunityLegal Services.

Representatives from local civilrights organizations.

Mini-courses, institutes, work-shops and conferences onselected topics.

Regular course offerings at localcolleges and universities.

Task forces composed of sub-committee of board members,school staff and consultants andcommunity people to analyzeselect topics.

"Walk through the budget" fol-lowing the purchasing p ss

frcrm request to delivery topayment.

One-day seminars on selectedtopics.

Orientation and Training for School Board Members

As Bureaucratic Decision-Makers

Understand the role and function of each part of the educational bureaucracy, the formal and informalorganizations-which run the schools, in order to set educational policy

Needed Skills Possible Resources Training Activities

4. Familiarity with PhysicalFacilitiesa.

Know what facilities are presently in use, how they arebeing utilized and know whatalternative facilities are avail-able in the community suit-able for educational programs.b.Understand the relationshipbetween facilities, educationalprograms and desired out-comesc.Be familiar with the 4ong-.range needs of the district tomaintain facilities and tomeet changing communityand student needs.

65

Experts on schodl facilities andschool building programs fromlocal architectural firms.

Local school administrators.

University professors from localuniversity departments of edu-cational administration.

Knowledgeable school boardmembers.

Urban Planners.

G

Mini-courses, workshops andinstitutes on selected topics.

One-day seminars.

Regular course offerings at localcolleges or universities.

Task force composed of sub-committee of board, communitypeople, school staff and expertsto deal with long-range needs ofschool district.

Orientation Program for New Board Members

Activities o Resources

M One-day seminar on legal man- University professor in school lawdates and constraints on boards of and school counsel.

0 education.

N

T

H

1

M

0

N

T

H

2

M

0

N

T

H

3

Mini-course on Sociology of Edu-cation and local implications(four weekly two-hour sessions).

"Walk through the budget" fol-lowing the purchase proceduresfrom order to delivery.

One-day seminar on curriculumand student achievement.

University professor in Sociology of,of Education, local organizationalleaders, student leaders and repre-sentatives of Community LegalServices and Civil Liberties Union.

School administrators.

Local school administrators andregional laboratory personnel.

Visit a local elementary schooland attend regular facultymeeting.

One-day seminar on physicalfacilities in school district.

Two-day collective bargaining,.simulation.

Visit local junior high and attendregular faculty meeting.

Local school staff.

School administrators and localschool architect.

Labor - management expert fromFederal Mediation Service.

Local school staff.

Attend National Training Lab-oratory (NTL) eight-day Programfor Managers in-Education,

Enroll in local university course inSociology of Education, Curricu-lum, School Facilities, etc.

Visit local high school, observein classroom and attend regularfaculty meeting,

66

NTL Institute for BehavioralScience.

Local or State university,

Local school staff.

Training Program for Experienced Board Members

Activities Resources

M

0

N

T

H

Organize and attend a weekendretreat for board members withtrained consultant.

Participate in day-long brain-storming sessions on educationalissues.

Develop action research projectto study student achievement inselected communities.

"Walk through the budget" fol-lowing purchase from order todelivery.

NTL or university group processconsultant.

NTL or university group processconsultant.

School staff, community and uni-versity representatives.

Local school administrators.

M

O

N

T

H

2

M

0

N

T

H

Mini-course on Sociology of Edu-cation (four weekly two-hoursessions).

One-day seminar on physical facil-ities in school district.

One-day seminar on Equal Em-ployment Opportunity and Fed-eral funding.

Mini-course on budgetary andaccounting procedures (fourweekly two-hour sessions),

University professor in Sociologyof Education.

School administrators and localschool architect.

Governmental agency personnel.

School administrators and expertin school financing.

Attend National Training Lab-oratory (NTL) eight-day Programfor Managers in Education.

Enroll in local university coursein Sociology of Education,School Law, School Finance, etc.

Plan and participate in weekendretreat with staff and communityrepresentatives to discuss schoolproblems and plan future action.

b7

NTL Institute of BehavioralScience.

Local or state university.

Grotip process consultant, com-munity people acid school staff.

7j

Appendix ALiteratureon SchoolBoards

James Koerner, in Who Controls American Education?offers an apt comment about educational research:

Little has yet come of the formalized, "scientific" studyof how education is controlled, perhaps because so fewinstruments exist with which to measure the exercise ofpower. [Having reviewed the literature in the field] .

the information in these studies is frequently conflictingand based on simplistic questionnaires or dubious inter-viewing techniques.... The value of these formal studiesis, alas, further diminished by their jawbreaking jargon.The habit of inventing a special vocabulary with which togive status to every subspecialty that comes along is badenough in,the academic departments of our colleges anduniversities; in professional education it is a compulsion.

An extended exposure to swamp gas of this kind is notmerely a punishing experience that does nothing to streng-then one's faith in the academic study of how Americaneducation is controlled; even worse, one may become in-fected oneself through sheer exposure in which case Ican only crave my reader's pardon.

With this "caveat" in mind, it may be useful to note the vari-ous types of studies currently available on school boardoperations. Some of the authors mentioned in the followingpages will be of interest chiefly to -..tudents of democraticor organizational theory; others may provide additional in-sight into the actual experience of school boards in dis-charging their important responsibility.,

There are at least five different types of research, analysis,and reporting on school boards and board members varyingin substance and style according to the perspectives of theauthors. These authors may be grouped as follows: (1) socialscientists, (2) students of educational administration,

68 71 .1

(3) journalists or concerned citizens, (4) school adminis-trators and school board members and (5) dissertationwriters.

1. Social ScientistsAmong the social scientists writing about school boards andboard members, there appear to be three fairly distinct ap-proaches: (a) political scientists with an interest in schoolboards as quasi-governmental institaions in the UnitedStates, (b) political and other social'scientists whose pri-mary interest is education and (c) specialists in organizationaldevelopment who are interested in studying the organiza-tionafbehavior of school boards.

Increasingly, political scientists interested in governing rela-tionships in the United States, are taking a look at schoolboard activities as one example of how members of societygo about the process of making and enforcing decisions.

Among the political scientists who look at school boards asentities in a larger political context are Michael Kirst, Har-mon Zeigler, M. Kent Jennings, Thomas Eliot, NicholasMasters, Stephen Bailey, Frederick Wirt, Karl F. Johnson,Alan Rosenthal, Robert Dahl, David Minar, Roscoe C. Mar-tin, Ralph Kimbrough, Warner Bloomberg, Edward Ban-field and James W. Wilson and Wallace S. Sayre and HerbertKaufman. Each of these authors focuses on issues and vari-,ables such as levels of conflict within the board, types ofinfluence exercised on the board, and the aggregation ofdemands on and interest in the board. A primary concernin each case is broadening the understanding of how peoplefunction within formal structures of power and wield politi-cal influence.

0In the next group, social scientists with a primary interest ineducation, one finds a similar, yet divergent, approach to

69 7

school boards and board members. Again one finds a relianceon varying forms of "scientific method" as the basis of re-search practice. In these cases, however, the issues and vari-ables at the core of the discussion are taken from such dis-ciplines as sociology, educational sociology, psychology andmanagement. A multi-disciplinary approach is the methodwith which each of these authors analyzes the problems ofeducation and the behavior of school boards and boardmembers.

One of the foremost authorities on school boards (particu-larly those in New York City) who uses a multi-disciplinaryapproach based largely in political science is Dr. MarilynGittell. Her books, Participants and Participation and SchoolBoards and School Policy, provide models for a multi-disciplinary approach to the problems which school boardsface. Among other social scientists writing about schoolboards in the larger context of problems of education areNeal Gross, James Koerner, Ronald Corwin, Myron Lieber-man, George S. Counts, Raymond Callahan, David Rogers,Mario Fantini, Gerald Weinstein, A. Cicourel and J. Kitsuse,David K. Wiles and Houston Conley, Roland Pellegrin, DeweyStollar, James M. Lipham, David Cohen and Jerome Murphy,Nathan Glazer and Peter Cistone, Edward-Mickcox and Laur-ence lannaccone. A dominant theme among these authors isthe role of education in the social structure of the UnitedStates and Canada. Since most have their disciplinary base insociology, they are concerned with roles and role expecta-tions, decision-making hierarch,/ and status, values, attitudesand attitude formation, the social structure of schools andcommunities, and the interaction between groups and organ-' izations within the social structure of a given community. .

This group of social scientists, then, focuses upon the roles,values, attitudes and organizational interaction of schoolboards within the larger social and decision-making structures

70 p-4 3

of the communities, cities and towns within which they.function.

Over the past fifteen years, an increasingly large group of be-havioral scientists, with disciplinary bases in psychology,social psychology, sociology and management studies, havefotused specific attention upon the problems of organiza-tional behavior and attempts to intervene in organizations.Among those most concerned with the possibilities of organ-izational change through school personnel and school boardmembers are Matthew Miles, Richard Schmuck and PhillipRunkel. In James March's Handbook of Organizations onefinds a chapter on organizational research in schools through1965 by Charles Bidwell entitled The School as a FormalOrganization." For an overview of values and ideology onemight look to Organizational Development by French and Bell.These specialists in organizational development are zeroingin on the analysis and evaluation of behaviors through whichorganizations, and in this case school boards, can better con-ceptualize and articulate their goals.

2. Students of Educational AdministrationThose involved in training school administrators began in the1950's, through the Co-operative Program in EducationalAdministration (CPEA), under a grant from the KelloggFoundation, to revitalize and reformulate the patterns andthe substance of training by establishing eight regional cen-ters for the development of new programs (e.g., the Centerfor the Advanced Study of Educational Administration atthe University of Oregon). The function of these centers wasnot only to develop new and better programs for training,but simultaneously to build credibility for the administrativesciences through the accumulation of formal scientificresearch.

71 I .1

Among the leading students of administrative practice inschools are Alan Campbell, Ronald Campbell, Russell T.Gregg, Joseph Cronin, Keith Goldhammer, Donald McCarty,H. Thomas James; Maurice Stapely, H. Thomas James andLuverh L. Cunningham. One of the classic documents onadministrative practice (often referred to as a "must" forschool administrators) is Chester Barnard's The Functionsof the Executive. Each of these authors focuses on the roleof school boards as one of the many problems administratorsface in trying to fulfill their executive functions in schoolsystems. Central issues in these discussions of school boardsare the division of function between policy-making and ad-ministration, how community representatives try to influencethe decisions of school boards, the increasing role of statesand the Federal government in circumscribing the jurisdictioriof school boards, and conflicts of interest between schoolstaffs and the communities they serve. Such research onschool boards and board members attempts to inform futureschool administrators about one of the central factors influ-encing the nature of their jurisdiction and power.

3. Journalists or Concerned CitizensThe next group of those who have written about schoolboards comprises an interesting conglomeration of journal-ists, community advocates and concerned citizens. The majorissues in these works deal with the impact of school boardpolicy and practice on education and, in turn, the impact ofthe public on educational policy. Among the authors andgroups writing from this perspective are Peter Schrag, DianeRavitch, Alan Altshuler, the National Committee for Citizensin Education, and numerous citizen-action groups aroundthe country. Specifically, the authors have concerned them-selves with community control, the politicization of educa-tional decision-making, school "wars" in New York City andproblems of educational governance in major cities aroundthe country. Most of these materials date from the mid-

72 t"4,)

sixties, when concern about the adequacy of education andequal opportunity were in the forefront of national concern.

4. Professionals and School Board MembersEvery profession has its "club" pros in this case, schoolboard members, ex-members and professionals in schoolboard organizations who write about professional problemsfrom a more subjective perspective. Among the writers andgroups in this circle are Edward Tuttle, the National SchoolBoards Association (Harold Webb and James Mecklenberger),Joseph Pois and numerous state school board associations.Issues which these authors discuss cover the gamut of schoolboard activities, such as distinctions among policy-making,administrative and housekeeping functions, or legislative,judicial. and executive function, how to deal with pressuregroups, how to establish policies in areas of personnel, cur-riculum, finance, facilities and administration, guidelines fornegotiations and implicit or explicit codes of ethics forschool board behavior. Clearly, authors or groups writingfrom this bent are not only concerned with the articulationof problems, but, specifically, with how to help schoolboards be more effective in confronting them.

5. Doctoral DissertationsDoctoral dissertations make up the bulk of the over fourhundred empirical studies of school boards and board mem-ber behavior and social characteristics. Although few of thesedoctoral students have continued their scholarly studies, anumber of educators currently writing about school boardsinitially articulated their interests in dissertations (e.g., KeithGoldhammer and Joseph Cronin)._

However, very little research to date explores how schoolboard members are influenced, let alone their impact on theschools they govern and the interests they reflect.

73 ti

Perhaps new conceptions of school board research need to beexplored first by questioning current methodology, andsecond by examining the kinds of questions asked aboutschool boards and their members. That is, why is researchbeing conducted and for whom? What is the utility of theresearch other than to "publish another piece"? Are the cur-rent strategies of empirical methodology adequate for thequestions which need to be asked about school boards, bothto broaden understanding and possibly to make them moreeffective agents for absorbing and generating change? Atpresent the greatest need is for forms of action research andlongitudinal and exploratory case studies of school boards inoperation. Action research entails both diagnosing organiza-tional problems, evaluating their cause, and developing andenacting plans for increased effectiveness on a continuingbasis, with the involvement of the participants in the organi-zation. Scholarly perspectives offered through a multi-disciplinary approach, as well as those by participantsboard members and members of the community are alsoneeded.

74

Appendix BBibliography

Altshuler, Alan A. Community Control: The BlackDemand for Participation in Large American Cities.New York: Pegasus, 1970.Bailey, Stephen K., Frost, Richard T., Marsh, Paul E. andWood, Robert C. Schoolmen and Politics: A Study of StateAid to Education in the Northeast. Syracuse: Syracuse Uni-versity Press, 1962.Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Cam-bridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1968.Bendiner, Robert. The Politics of Schools. New York: Harperand Row, 1969.Cahill, Robert S., and Hencley, Stephan P. The Politics ofEducation in the Local Community. Danville, Ill.: InterstatePrinters and Publishers, 1964.Callahan, Raymond. Education and the Cult of Efficiency.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Carver, Fred. "Social Class and School Board Role Expecta-tions," Urban Education, 3, pp. 143-154, 1968.Cistone, Peter. "School Board Member Recruitment in On-tario," paper presented at the American Education ResearchAssociation, 1973.Corwin, Ronald. A Sociology of Education, Emerging Pat-terns of.Class, Status and Power in the Public Schools.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.Counts, George S. The Social Composition of Boards of Edu-cation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927.Cronin, Joseph. The Control of Urban Schools. New York:The Free Press, 1963.Cunningham, Luvern L. "Decision-Making Behavior of SchoolBoards," American School Board Journal, 144 (February)pp. 13-16, 1962.

. "A Community Develops Educational Policy." Un-published Ed.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1958.Dahl, Robert A. Democracy in the United States: Promiseand Performance (2nd ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally and Com-pany, 1972.

75

. Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an Ameri-can City. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961.Dreeben, Robert. On What is Learned in School. Reading, Ma.:Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1968.Eliot, Thomas H. "Toward an Understanding of PublicSchool Politics," The American Political Science Review,(December) pp. 1032-1052, 1959. Also in Alan Rosenthal(ed.), Governing Education: A Reader on Politics, Power andPublic School Policy. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books,Doubleday and Company, 1959.Eulau, Heinz. "Changing Views of Representation." In: Ithielde Sole Pool (ed.), Contemporary Political Science. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967.Fantini, M., Gittel, Marilyn and Magat, R. Community Con-trol and the Urban School. New York: F. A. Praeger, 1970.French, Wendell L., and Bell, Cecil H., Jr. OrganizationalDevelopment: Behavioral Science Intervention for Organiza-tional Improvement. Englewood Cliffs,-N.J.: Prentice-Hall,Inc., 1973.Gehlen, Freida L. "The Political Aspects of Small Town andRural Schools" (unpublished). ERIC File No. ED 030 502,1969.Gittell, Marilyn. Local Control and Education: Three Demon-stration School Districts in New York City. New York: F. A.Praeger, 1972.

. Participants and Participation, Study of SchoolPolicy in New York City. New York: Center for Urban Edu-cation.Gittell, Marilyn, et al. School Boards and School Policy: AnEvaluation of Decentralization in New York City. New York:F. A. Praeger, 1973. .

Gittell, Marilyn and Berube, Maurice. Confrontation at OceanHill-Brownsville. New York: F. A. Praeger, 1969.Gittell, Marilyn and Hevesi, Alan G. (eds.). The Politics ofUrban Education. New York: F. A. Praeger, 1969.Gittell, Marilyn and Hollander, T. Edward. "The Process of

76

Change: Case Study of Philadelphia." In: Marilyn Gittell andAlan G. Hevesi, The Politics of Urban Education. New York:F. A. Praeger, 1969.Goldhammer, Keith. The School Board. New York: TheCenter for Applied Research in Education, Inc. 1964.

"The Administration of the Community's Schools,"_ .

American School Board Journal, 139 (October) pp. 27-30,1959.

. "Community Power Structure and School BoardMembership," American School Board Journal, 130 (March)pp. 23-25, 1955.

. "The Roles of School District Officials in PolicyDetermination in an Oregon Community." Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, University of Oregon, 1954.Goldhammer, Keith and Pellegrin, Roland J. Jackson CountyRevisited: A Case Study of the Politics of Public Education.Eugene: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Ad-ministration, University of Oregon, 1968.Gross, Neal. Who Runs Our Schools? New York: John Wiley,1958.Gross, N., Mason, W., and McEachern, Alexander. Explorationin Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role.New York: John Wiley, 1968.Halpern, Manfred. "A Redefinition of the Revolutionary Sit-uation," Journal of International Affairs, X LI 1 I (1) pp. 54-75,1969.Hollingshead, August B. Elmtown's Youth. New York:Science Editions, 1961.Hunter Floyd. Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press, 1953.Hurwitz, Mark W. "The Personal Characteristics and Attitudesof New Jersey School Board Members." Unpublished Ed.D.dissertation, Temple University, 1971.lannaccone,- Laurence, "The Future of State Politics in Educa-tion.'' In: Frank Lutz,and Joseph Azzarelli (eds.). Struggle

77 8 l)

for Power in Education. New York: Center for Applied Re-search in Education, 1966.

. Politics in Education. New York: Center for Ap-plied Research in Education, 1964.lannaccone, Laurence, and Wiles, David. "The Changing Poli-tics of Urban Education," Education and Urban Society(May) pp. 255-264, 1971.Inger, Morton. "School Desegregation: The Need to. Govern,"The Urban Review, 3 (November) pp. 35-38, 1968.Jennings, M. Kent, and Zeigler, Harmon. "Interest Represen-tation in School Governance," paper presented at the Ameri-an Education Research Association, 1970.atz, Michael. Class, Bureaucracy and Schools: The Illusion

of Educational Change in America. New York: F. A. Praeger,1971.Kerr, Norman. "The School Board as an Agency-of Legitimi-zation, Sociology of Education, 38, pp. 34-59. Also inAlan Rosenthal, Governing Education: A Reader on Politics,Power and Public School Policy, 1964.Kimbrough, Ralph B. "An Informal Arrangement for Influ-ence over Basic Policy." In: Kimbrough. Political Power andEducational Decision Making. Chicago: Rand McNally andCompany. Also in Alan Rosenthal, Governing Education: AReader on Politics, Power and Public School Policy, 1964.Kirst, Michael W. "Community Influences on Education." In:Improving School Effectiveness. Princeton: Educational Test-ing Service, 1973.

. The Politics of Education at the Local, State andFederal Levels. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation,1970:Koerner, James D. Who Controls American Education? AGuide for Laymen. Boston: Beacon Press, 1968.Lake, Dale and Miles, Matthew. COPED Document (Co-opera-tive Project for Educational Development). ERIC System,ED 042- (267-269). Washington, D.C.: H.E.W., 1967.Lauter, Paul and Howe, Florence, "The School Mess," New

78 8

York Review of Books (February), pp. 16-21. In: MarilynGittell and Alan Hevesi (eds.). The Politics of Urban Education.New York: F. A. Praeger, 1969.Levin, Henry (ed.). Community Control of Schools. Washing-ton, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1970.Lieberman, Myron. The Future of Public Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1960.Lipham, James M. The School Board as an Agency for Resolv-ing Conflict. Madison: University of Wisconsin. ERIC File No.ED 016 280, 1967.Lockard, Duane. The Perverted Priorities. New York:MacMillan, 1971.Lynd, Robert and Lynd, Helen. Middletown. New York:Harcourt-Brace and Corm.. -:y, 1929.March, James G. (ed.). Handbook of Organizations. Chicago:Rand,McNally and Company, 1965.Marcus, Sheldon and Rivlin, Harry N. Conflicts in Urban Edu-cation. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1970.Martin, Roscoe C. "School Government." In: Roscoe C.Martin. Government and the Suburban School (#2 TheEconomics and Politics of Public Education Series). Syracuse,N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1962.Masoth, Louis H. Education and Politics ih Suburbia. Cleve-land: Western Reserve, 1967.Masters, Nicholas A., Salisbury, Robert H., and Eliot, T. H.State Politics and the Public Schools A ExploratoryAnalysis. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1 64. ,Mayer, Martin. The Teachers Strike, NeW York 1968. NewYork: Harper and Row. ERIC File No. ED 029 395, 1969.395, 1969.McCardic, W. J. "Urban Education: An Experiment in Two-Tiered Administration." In: L. D. Feldman and M.D. Gold-rick (eds.). Politics and Government of Urban Canada.Toronto: Methuen Press, 1969.Minar, David. "Educational Decision-Making in Suburban

798

Communities." In: Michae1Kirst (ed.). The Politics of Edu-cation. Berkeley. McCutchan, 1970.Moore, Hollis A., Jr. Studies in School Administration, AReport on the CPEA. Washington, D.C.: American Associa-tion of School Administrators, 1957.Mullins, Carolyn. "How School Boards Drive SuperintendentsUp the Wall," The American School Board Journal, (August),161(8) pp. 15-19, 1974.Page, Ruth F. "What is the Future of Local Boards of Educa-tion?" Paper Presented to American Association of SchoolAdministrators, February 19. ERIC File No. ED 021 331,1968.Pois, Joseph. The School Board Crisis: A Chicago Case Study.Chicago: Educational Methods, Inc., 1964.Presthus, Robert. Men at the Top: A Study in CominunityPower. New York: Oxford Press, 1964.Prewitt, Kenneth. The. Recruitment of Political Leaders: AStudy of Citizen Politicians. Indianapolis, In.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970.Ravitch, Diane. The Great School Wars, New York City1805-1973. New York: Basic Books, 1974.Rogers, David. 110 Livingston Street. New York: RandomHouse, 1969.Rosenthal, Alan (ed.). Governing Education: A Reader onPolitics, Power and Public School Policy. Garden City, N.Y.:Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, 1969.Ross, Donald. Administration for Adaptability. New YorkMetropolitan School Study, 1958.Sayre, Wallace S., and Kaufman, Herbert. Governing NewYork City, Politics in\the Metropolis. New York: W. W.Norton and Company, Inc., 1965.Schmuck, \Richard A., and Miles, Matthew. OrganizationalDevelopment in Schools. Palo Alto: National Press Book,1970.Schmuck, Richard and Runkel, Phillip et al. Handbook of

80 t)8

Organizational Development in Schools. Palo Alto: NationalPress Book, 1972.Schon, Donald. Beyond the Stable State. New York: Ran-dom House, 1971.Schrag, Peter. Village School Downtown. Boston: BeaconPress, 1967.

. ' "Pittsburgh: The Virtues of Candor." In MarilynGittell and Alan G. Hevesi (eds.), The Politics of Urban Edu-cation. New York: F. A. Praeger, 1969.Stanley, William 0., Jr. Education and Social Integration..New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Colum-bia University, 1953.Stoller, Dewey H. et al. Analysis and Interpretation of Re-search for School Board Members Final Report. Knoxville:Tennessee University. ERIC File No. ED 033 087, 1969.Stout, Irving (ed.) A Manual for Navajo Community SchdolBoard Members. Tempe: Arizona State University. ERICFile No. ED 040 816, 1969.Stout, Robert T., and Sroufe, Gerald E. "Politics withoutPower, the Dilemma of a Local School System," Phi DeltaKappan (February), pp. 342-345, 1968.Tuttle, Edward M. School Board Leadership in America Pre-1958. Chicago: Interstate Books, Inc., 1958.Vidich, Arthur J., and Bensman, Joseph. Small Town in MassSociety. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1958.Watson, G. (ed.). Change in School Systems. Washington,D.C.: National Training Laboratories, NEA, 1967.Wiles, David K., and Conley, Houston. "School Boards: TheirPolicy-Making Relevance," Columbia Teachers College Record.February 75(3) pp: 309-318, 1974.Williams, Tom and Wiles, David. "Toward an Understandingof Two-Tiered Systems of Educational Governance: TheInadequacy of Formal Structural Descriptions," Planning andChanging. (April) 1973.Wirt, Frederick M., and Kirst, Michael. The Political Web of

81

American Schools. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,1972.Zeigler, Harmon and Johnson, Karl F. The Politics of Educa-tion in the States. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, Inc., 1972.

82