Citation
The effects of fragmentation of the Florida educational lobby

Material Information

Title:
The effects of fragmentation of the Florida educational lobby
Creator:
Fergusson, Norman H
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 193 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Education ( jstor )
Education legislation ( jstor )
Education politics ( jstor )
Interest groups ( jstor )
Legislators ( jstor )
Legislature ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Teacher organizations ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF ( lcsh )
Education -- Political aspects -- Florida ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Lobbying -- Florida ( lcsh )
Pressure groups -- Florida ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 184-191.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Norman H. Fergusson.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
028534392 ( ALEPH )
08905112 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
















THE EFFECTS OF FRAGMENTATION OF THE FLORIDA EDUCATIONAL LOBBY









By


NORMAN H.


FERGUSSON


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1982















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer acknowledges the valuable assistance

provided by his Dissertation Committee in the preparation of this study. Special thanks are expressed by the writer to Dr. Ralph Kimbrough, Chairman of the Committee, for his willing counsel, support and encouragement; to Dr. Robert Sherman for valuable criticism and aid; and to Dr. James Longstreth for his interest in the effort. Thanks are expressed also to Dr. Michael Nunnery who provided assistance in the proposal stage.

The writer gratefully acknowledges the information provided by those who participated in interviews. Despite busy schedules they gave up time to assist the writer in his effort.

Acknowledgements would not be complete without reference to the writer's wife, Isabel, who not only typed and proofread this dissertation, but provided encouragement to get it completed.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........... ........

ABSTRACT ........ ...................


PAGE
* . . ii

* . � V


CHAPTER


ONE


INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . ....


Background of the Study .... Statement of the Purpose .... Delimitations and Limitations Justification for the Study Definition of Terms. . .... Procedures. . . .........
Organization of the Study.


� . . . 1
. . . . 7
* . . . 7

* . . . 9
*. .. . 12
*. .. . 19


REVIEW OF LITERATURE CONCERNING STATE
EDUCATIONAL INTEREST GROUPS ....


Study of Eight Northeastern States . . Study of Three Midwestern States .... Four Types of State Lobbying Structures Study of Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz.. . Educational Coalitions. . . . . .... Educational Governance Project. .... General Analysis of State Studies . . . Summary ..................... ..


THREE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE CONCERNING
INTEREST GROUPS .............

Introduction. ................
Unified Lobbies or Coalitions . .
Typologies of Organization. ...
Three Theories to Analyze
Interest Groups ............
The Legislature as an Initiator .


� . . 57

* . . 57 . . . 58
* . . 59

. . . 61 . . . 78


iii


TWO


21













The Legislative Staff-A Fourth House? ... ............ 81
Discussion .... ........... . . .. 86
Summary ....... .... .............. 92
Propositions ..... ................ 93

FOUR RESULTS OF THE FLORIDA FIELD STUDY ..... ...96

Preview .. ................. 96
Changes in Educational Lobbies ....... . 97 A United or Divided Lobby ........... .104
Effectiveness of the Pre-1968 Versus
the Post-1968 Lobby ... ......... .105
Rankings of Influence .... .......... .107
Advantages or Disadvantages of a
Unified Lobby .... ............. ill
Originators of Educational
Legislation Change .... .......... .113
Political "Know-How" ...... ........ .116
Loss or Gain of Influence ........... .119
Change in Commitment to Education. . . . 124 Groups Presenting Useful Information . . 125 A More Effective Educational Lobby . . . 128 Summary ...... ............. . . . 130

FIVE INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION .. ....... .134

Propositions and Findings ............. 134

SIX SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ... ........... ..160

Summary ....... ................. .160
Implications .......... .... .169
Suggestions for Future Research. . . . . 175

APPENDICES

A LISTING OF INTERVIEWEES ... ........ . . 179

B INTERVIEW GUIDE ........ .......... 182

REFERENCES ....... ............... . . . . . 184

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... ................ .192














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


THE EFFECTS OF FRAGMENTATION
OF THE FLORIDA EDUCATIONAL LOBBY


By


Norman H. Fergusson

May 1982


Chairman: Ralph B. Kimbrough Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision


State educational lobby structures and their influences are part of an important and relatively new area of study. The purpose of this dissertation was to derive from the literature a set of propositions relating to the causes and effects of fragmentation of state educational lobbies; to study the fragmentation of the state educational lobby in Florida by means of a field study and a review of related documents and literature; and to examine the extent to which the effects of this fragmentation were consistent with the derived set of propositions.

A review of literature about state educational

lobbies revealed a lack of developed theory to explain














the causes and effects of fragmentation of educational lobbies. Literature from political science and organizational fields also was reviewed. A typology was fashioned from components of three theories about interest groups (sociological, exchange, and rational) and used as a conceptual framework for the study. Eight propositions were developed about the effects of fragmentation of state educational lobbies.

Significant findings were as follows: (a) the fragmented educational lobby in Florida was perceived to be much more effective than the old united lobby; (b) there was an increased role by the legislature in educational policy-making; (c) legislative staffs were perceived to be powerful influences in educational policy-making; (d) teachers' organizations were seen to increase in influence; (e) fragmentation was initiated by disturbances which affected the stability of the state teachers' organization; (f) the state teachers' organization was seen to have passed through an unstable exchange phase involving conflict, charismatic leadership, and a change of ideology, toward a rational (economic) phase of organization; (g) superintendents and the DOE were seen to have lost influence; (h) there was general agreement that the educational lobby would increase its effectiveness by becoming unified; (i) a growing unity on particular issues was observed. Data were not














conclusive about the extent to which the stability of the teachers' organizations was affected by the ability to offer selective economic benefits to their membership. The writer developed a conceptual framework for this study from political science theory, and suggests that this approach would be useful in further studies.


vii
















CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION




Background of the Study


Politics has been defined by Iannaccone (1967) as

that segment of social life involving the
activities and relationships of individuals,
groups, and associations resulting in, or
intended to result in, decisions by any
governmental, policy-making body. (p. 4)

The old myth that education and politics do not mix has been shown to be misleading and inaccurate. Easton (1957) observed that while the primary orientation of educational institutions was not toward politics, it was important to explore the directions through which education leaves its impact upon political life and is, in turn, affected by it (p. 309). And as Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee (1965) stated, "Educational policy-making at all governmental levels is immersed in politics and by definition educational policy-making is political action" (p. 404). Marden (1965) after reviewing studies of 1964 noted "the total immersion of the state politics of the public schools within the total political processes of state













government" (p. 54). Stinnett and Cleveland (1976) stated that
I
Teachers must shed the persisting naivete about politics and engage vigorously in its processes.
No instrument of government is more involved in
politics than public schools. (p. 87)

State educational lobby groups have been involved

in political activity for a long time. A unified approach to the legislature was preceded by the achievement of consensus by the different organizations within the unified educational lobby. When the constituent organizations were no longer able to present a unified front to the legislature fragmentation of the lobby resulted. According to Burlingame and Geske (1979) it has been only in the past 15 years that fragmentation of state educational lobbies began to be associated with distinct and dramatic changes in state politics (p. 50).

A typology for describing the structure of state educational lobbies was developed by Iannaccone (1967). After examining two studies involving 11 states he noted four types of organizational patterns for linking educational interest groups and state legislators.

Type I. A locally-based disparate structure characterized by strong localism in legislature contacts, and likely to fall apart after each effort with the legislature;














Type II. A state-wide monolithic structure which

possessed a high degree of consensus among school interest groups and their allies (a coalition);

Type III. A state-wide fragmented structure wherein interest groups came to the legislature disunited, often in conflict rather than consensus; and

Type IV. A state-wide syndical structure which had a formal government link between legislators and school interest groups (pp. 47-50). Iannaccone found more cases of state-wide monolithic structures (Type II) than any other in the states he studied, but suggested that there was a process of dynamic change through the four types of structures (pp. 70-74).

Some years later, an Educational Governance Project, using 1972-73 data, studied educational interest groups in 12 states. Aufderheide (1976), a participant in the Educational Governance Project (EGP), perceived a fragmentation of educational interest groups as the prevailing structure. The 12 states, when summarized according to Iannaccone's typology, were arranged as follows:













Locally based State-wide State-wide
disparate monolithic fragmented Tennessee California Texas Massachusetts Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
New York
Wisconsin
Florida ...... ............... Florida
Georgia ....... ..Georgia
Colorado . . .. Colorado (p. 201)

The data in the above table show that fragmentation was evident in the more industrialized states, and that monolithic structures prevailed in Tennessee and Texas (in these two states the teachers' organizations were unified). Florida was unique in that while it was largely state-wide fragmented, some elements of a locally-based disparate model also existed (since the teachers' organization was in disarray) (Aufderheide, 1976, pp. 200-201).

Nystrand (1976), in analyzing the findings from

the above studies, suggested that Iannaccone was correct in predicting the shift which was subsequently noted from the state monolithic structure (Type II) to a state-wide fragmented structure (Type III). Nystrand did not, however, note any movement from the Type III to Type IV structure (p. 261).

An example of the fragmentation of an educational

lobby occurred in Florida in the late 1960's and early 1970's.














In the early 1960's the Florida Education Association (FEA) was the focal point for educational interest group leaders to formulate common positions on educational legislation. The FEA, which included both administrators and teachers in its membership, had close ties with the superintendents' associations, the Florida Department of Education (DOE), the Florida School Boards' Association, and some university personnel. The legislature depended upon the Florida DOE and the FEA for legislative proposals. The united educational lobby directly interacted then with legislative leaders, particularly concerning legislation dealing with the public schools (DePalma, 1973, pp. 16-18).

The growing teacher frustration and militancy in the 1960's in Florida finally resulted in the 1968 teachers' "walkout" or strike--probably the most newsworthy event in the fragmentation of the unified educational lobby. The events leading up to the strike and its aftermath caused much turmoil throughout the state (Teverbaugh, 1968, p. 6). During and following the strike, the relationships between the FEA, superintendents, school board groups, and the Florida Department of Education changed. Harmony between the FEA and these other groups was replaced by bitterness. Administrators left or were excluded from the FEA, and close ties with the other groups were lost. The teaching profession itself became fragmented into several groups and the













unified state educational lobby collapsed. As DePalma commented: "The 'old order' monolithic structure which linked educational interest groups to the legislature had been fragmented" (DePalma, 1973, pp. 18, 21). Kimbrough, Wattenbarger, and Alexander (1981) also noted that

The failure of the teachers' strike served to
fragment educational groups, a process that had
been building for several years before 1968. In
the breakup of the old order, power over education
was "up for grabs." (pp. 432-433)

While several writers, in addition to DePalma, have commented upon the events leading up to the fragmentation of the educational lobby in Florida, a library search has failed to produce a dissertation or any other study dealing with the effects of the fragmentation.

In reviewing research in education, Griffiths (1979) noted that many functions of educational organizations could not be explained by present theory, and that none of the present theories acknowledged the existence of teachers' unions (p. 264). Since teachers' organizations were one of the major components of educational lobbies it would be difficult to develop comprehensive theory about the fragmentation of educational lobbies without consideration of the role played by teachers' organizations (Usdan, 1969, p. 33).














Statement of the Purpose


The purpose of this study was, first, to derive from the literature a set of propositions relating to the causes and effects of fragmentation of state educational lobbies; second, to study the fragmentation of the state educational lobby in Florida by means of a field study and a review of related documents and literature; and, third, to examine the extent to which the effects of the fragmentation of the educational lobby in Florida were consistent with the derived set of propositions.



Delimitations and Limitations


1. The literature reviewed to derive propositions was limited to studies about state educational lobbies and educational influence in politics, as well as political science and organizational theory related to fragmentation of interest groups.

2. The field study concerning the fragmentation of a state educational lobby was limited to Florida.

3. The field study involved interviews with 45

non-randomly selected knowledgeable persons. Any attempt, therefore, at generalization will have to be carefully considered.














Justification for the Study


The fragmentation of state educational lobbies

has been observed by scholars in the past decade. The study of these lobbies is a relatively new area, however, and a review of literature, including dissertations, revealed a lack of developed theory to explain the causes and consequences of fragmentation of these lobbies.

Educational lobbies are involved in competition for resources with other groups at the state level. As has been previously noted, educational policy-making is immersed in politics. An understanding of the effects of fragmentation on the political influence of educational lobby groups is especially important in a time of competition for scarce resources.

Educational leaders and scholars would be well served by a contribution to the development of theory about political fragmentation of these groups. One significant example of the fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby occurred in Florida in 1968 following a state-wide teachers' strike. Because of the above factors, this case study of Florida was undertaken.














Definition of Terms


Chief State School Officer (CSSO). A position established by law in every state; sometimes called superintendent of public instruction or commissioner of education. In most states the CSSO is the executive officer of the state board of education, head of the department of education, and chief administrative officer for executing state educational laws and regulations. In a majority of states the CSSO is appointed by the state board but in a considerable number the CSSO is elected, as in Florida, and in a few he is appointed by the governor. In Florida the Cabinet is the State Board of Education and the CSSO is a member of Cabinet (Campbell & Mazzoni, 1976, pp. 81-82).

Collective Benefits. Benefits which accrue to people in a particular situation or category, regardless of their organizational affiliation (Salisbury, 1969, p. 21).

Conflict. "A breakdown in the standard mechanisms of decision-making so that an individual or group experiences difficulty in selecting an action alternative" (March & Simon, 1958, p. 123).

Disturbance. A change or disequilibriumism in established patterns of interaction and expectations (Truman, 1971, pp. 29, 511); some force that changes the "equilibrium" of a group with other elements in society (Berry, 1978, p. 380).













Economic Incentives. Tangible benefits an individual receives such as salaries, insurance plans, protective services, which give potential members of an organization incentives to join.

Elitism. This term refers to a system in which

disproportionate power rests in the hands of a relatively small group or community (Presthus, 1964, p. 10).

Florida Education Association (FEA). An organization formerly affiliated with the National Education Association, and formerly including administrators as well as teachers as members. The FEA is now affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers and does not include administrators in its membership.

Florida teachers' strike. The 1968 strike, or

walkout, or mass resignation of teachers in Florida. There may be some argument as to what term is the proper or most accurate, but in this study the most common reference to the event noted is "strike."

Florida Teaching Profession (FTP). When the Florida Education Association became affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, the group of teachers who continued affiliation with the National Education Association became known as the FTP.













Fragmentation. In this study fragmentation refers to the breakup of the unified state educational lobby (composed of different interest groups), and the breakup of the Florida Education Association as it existed in 1968.

Interest group. A group in which the shared

interests of members include attempts to influence decisions made within the public policy-making systems (sometimes called a pressure group, lobby, or voluntary association) (Greenwald, 1977, p. 13).

Pluralism. A system in which political power is fragmented and shared between the state and a multitude of private groups and individuals (Presthus, 1964, p. 10).

Purposive incentives. Ideological and political satisfactions an individual would receive by joining an organization (Berry, 1978, p. 383).

Selective benefits. Benefits which accrue only to

members of an association or group (Salisbury, 1969, p. 21).

Solidary incentives. Socializing and friendship benefits which attract individuals to an organization.

Unified state educational lobby. A coalition at the state level of organizations for the purpose of lobbying the legislators on educational matters (Aufderheide, 1976, p. 197).














Procedures


The procedures in this study consisted of two

parts: first, a review of studies concerning fragmentation of educational lobbies to derive a set of propositions for the study; and, second, the conduct of a case study of the consequences of fragmentation of the Florida educational lobby to determine the extent to which derived propositions are applicable to Florida.


Development of the Theory

In order to provide a conceptual foundation for the study, literature specific to the fragmentation of state educational lobbies, and literature particularly from the field of political science theory which pertains to the fragmentation of such groups, was examined. This resulted in a set of propositions dealing with fragmentation of educational lobbies.

This study was undertaken to learn more about the

consequences of fragmentation of state educational lobbies. Of particular interest were predictions about the changes in influence relationships as a result of fragmentation. A number of expert views about theory and method are presented in the following paragraphs.














Knezevich (1969) defined theory as follows:

A theory (model) is a cluster of interlocking and
interactive concepts systematized into an abstracted
intellectual pattern capable of interpreting
generalizable trends and inter-relationships that
prevail within a set of varied facts within reality
(or a part of it). (pp. 510-511)

Kerlinger (1973) defined theory as

A set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a systematic
view of phenomena by specifying relations among
variables, with the purpose of explaining and
predicting the phenomena. (p. 9)

According to Landau (1972) conceptualization is a

broad and ambiguous term which breaks down into two distinct sets: categories (or concepts, classes, predicates); and expectations (or propositions, statements, hypotheses) (p. 48).

The ability to compare the results of the survey

with some outside criterion provided, to some extent, a means to test the validity of survey responses (Kerlinger, 1973, p. 418). An examination of historical data may be used as a criterion to check the results of data obtained from a survey involving perceptions of events over time.

According to the sociologist Mills (1959), any

systematic attempt to understand involves an alternation between empirical intake and theoretical assimilation. While concepts ought to guide investigation, investigation













ought to check upon and reshape concepts (p. 74). Greenfield (1975) suggested that research should turn to the case study and comparative and historical methods "which represent perceived reality more faithfully and fully than do the present highly quantified and abstruse techniques" (pp. 77).

Welsh (1979) observed that elite interviewing was a sensitive mode of data gathering, that such research had the advantage of directness, of being able to pursue interesting issues, and of being organized around topics in which the researcher is interested. Welsh suggested also that a more-than-one-method approach to understanding political influence would help overcome difficulties of validity and reliability (pp. 55-56). The Florida Field Study

A central part of the Florida study was a field

study which was verified with related historical references. The field study involved 45 in-depth interviews through which information about the consequences of such fragmentation was obtained.

Selection of persons interviewed. A list of

knowledgeable persons was first selected in consultation with the writer's advisors. Names were added as the













interviews were carried out. The criteria for selection included (a) public positon held in relation to educational lobbying (i.e., teachers' unions, legislators, state bureaucracy), and (b) person's known participation in educational lobbying activities in Florida. The persons interviewed included key persons involved in education in the late 1960's and early 1970's when fragmentation of the educational lobby took place; and some present day educational leaders and legislators--including teachers' organization leaders, school board association leaders, and civil servants. A list of those interviewed is noted in Appendix A.

Interview guide. An initial list of interview

questions was tested on three persons, and then reviewed with the chairman of the writer's doctoral committee. The result was a list of 11 items relating to perceptions about changes and the consequences of changes among the different groups involved in the old Florida educational lobby.

According to Kerlinger (1973) the personal

interview is the "most powerful and useful tool" of social scientific survey research. Not only may factual information, opinions, and attitudes be obtained, but the interviewer may explore the reasons for such opinions and attitudes (p. 412).














Generally the interview instrument included both

open-ended and structured questions rather than totally free or totally structured items. Closed questions yield information to classify the respondent with respect to a particular perception; open-ended questions are helpful in learning something about the respondent's frame of reference and intensity of feeling (Kahn & Cannell, 1958, p. 135). The interview guide is shown in Appendix B.


Collection of the Data

Data sources consisted of three main areas:

(a) the review of literature related to fragmentation of educational lobbies, and literature concerning interest groups; (b) an examination of the literature and documents relating to the consequences of fragmentation of educational lobbies in Florida; and (c) the collection of data, through in-depth interviews, concerning the consequences of the fragmentation of the educational lobby in Florida.

The interviews were arranged first through introductory letters from the chairman of the writer's doctoral committee. An introductory letter from a well-known writer in the field of politics and education was no doubt very helpful in the initiation of interviews. Dexter (1970) has noted













the importance of "introductions from trusted sources" for setting up interviews (p. 30).

Follow-up telephone calls were made by the writer

to arrange interviews. Often several calls were necessary in order to contact and arrange a suitable time for interviews. Several automobile trips were then necessary to carry out personal interviews. Personal interviews were carried out with about one-half of those respondents interviewed.

Because of difficulties involving time and geographical factors for interviews, it was then decided to use telephone interviews with the remainder of the respondents. As mentioned above, letters from the writer's advisor preceded arrangement of interviews. Some of the respondents indicated that it was more convenient for them to use the telephone for interviews than arrange for personal interviews.

The length of time for the interviews generally

was in the one-half hour to the one and one-quarter hour range. Telephone interviews usually were somewhat shorter than personal interviews. In most cases respondents were very cooperative. Two telephone respondents were in a hurry and not fully cooperative. The writer, however, does not believe a personal interview could have been arranged













in these cases. In general the telephone interviewees seemed to be as open as those personally interviewed.

Most respondents did not appear to be cautious or tentative in their comments. When the anonymity feature of the interview was stated by the interviewer, many respondents indicated that their opinions were ones they would be willing to state openly. The cooperation by telephone, however, was probably aided significantly by the letters of introduction. In addition to introductory letters, the interviewer often had to call more than once to locate the respondent. This factor would also help in making the interviewee conversant with the reason for the call. Notes of the conversations were taken by the writer after obtaining permission from the interviewees.

Fox (1969) stated that interview success depends

upon the ability to establish rapport with the respondent so that "honest and complete responses" occur without a bias or influence caused by the interviewer or by the manner of questioning (p. 544). It appeared to the interviewer that the responses whether by personal or telephone interview, were honest and complete.












Data Treatment

Data gathered from interviews generally consisted

of opinions of respondents; however, events mentioned by any respondent could be cross-checked, not only with other responses, but also with the interviewer's knowledge of events obtained from readings. The writer had read many newspaper accounts which were written just before, during, and immediately after the Florida state-wide teacher strike of 1968. In addition, the writer had copies available of a variety of papers and articles, as well as one book about the strike and its aftermath. At least two reports helped the writer obtain knowledge of the shifts in influence following the fragmentation of the lobby. These reports, Depalma's in 1973 prepared for the Educational Governance Projec and a Consultant's Report in 1978 prepared for a committee of the Florida Legislature, provided time interval checks on the state of influence of some lobby groups.



Organization of the Study

The study is reported in six chapters. Chapter One contains the introduction and includes the background of the study, statement of the problem, delimitations and limitations, justification for the study, definition of













terms, procedures, and organization of the report. Chapter Two contains a review of literature relating to state educational lobbies and fragmentation. Chapter Three contains a review of literature about interest groups and the development of assumptions about the fragmentation of interest groups. Chapter Four is a presentation of the results of data from the Florida field study. Chapter Five contains an interpretation and discussion of data. A summary of the study, implications, and suggestions for future research are provided in Chapter Six.
















CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE CONCERNING STATE EDUCATIONAL INTEREST GROUPS



Is group consensus necessary for the political effectiveness of educational interest groups? A very important concern in this dissertation is whether the fragmentation of educational interest groups seriously impairs their effectiveness in the political arena.

To obtain more knowledge on this issue, the writer reviewed the literature about state educational interest groups or lobbies. The results of this review are presented in this chapter. Major studies and analyses reviewed include the study of Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont by Bailey, Frost, Marsh, and Wood (1962); the study of Missouri, Illinois, and Michigan by Masters, Salisbury, and Eliot (1964); Iannaccone's (1967) post factum analysis of studies; the study involving California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas by Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz (1969); and the Educational Governance Project involving California, Colorado, Florida,













Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin by Campbell, Mazzoni, and others (1976).



Study of Eight Northeastern States


The politics of state school aid in eight northeastern states was analyzed by Bailey, Frost, Marsh, and Wood (1962). The states studied were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and New Jersey. The authors built their study around the simple proposition that finance for schools is determined politically. The study placed heavy reliance upon interviews--generally unstructured and open-ended. About 500 persons were interviewed including legislators, professional schoolmen, executive and administrative personnel in state governments, and a miscellany of citizens, journalists and academicians. The authors also examined a great many documents from both private and government sources (pp. vii-xiv).

Groups generally aligned in efforts to increase state school aid included governors, legislators, party leaders, teachers and lay supporters, particular business interests, and academicians (such as Paul Mort) who were termed "scribblers." A coalition could be an on-going organization, as in New York; a strategic device of













the state department of education, as in Rhode Island and possibly New Hampshire; or an ad hoc one-time affair as in Massachusetts. The drive to coalesce resulted in the New York State Educational Conference Board, the New Hampshire Joint Committee on Needs of Education, the New Jersey "Princeton Group," the Massachusetts Association for Adequate State Financing for Public Schools (in the late 1940's), the Connecticut Legislative Coordinating Committee, the Maine Advisory Board, and the Rhode Island Liaison Committee.

The most impressive example of these coalitions was the New York Educational Conference Board which consisted of the state teachers' association, the state school boards' association, the state congress of parents and teachers, the public education association of New York City, the state citizens' committee for the public schools, the state association of district school superintendents, the state association of secondary school principals, and the state association of elementary school principals. This Conference Board was organized first by the secretaries of the state teachers' association and the state school boards' association who were concerned with the betterment of education through political influence; and the secretariats of these two organizations, along with the state department of education














and Paul Mort of Columbia University Teachers' College continued as the tactical core of the coalition. The authors note, however, that this coalition was a sounding board for an inner core of seven schoolmen. Perhaps the most important of these schoolmen was Paul Mort, whose writings on education finance had great influence in the northeast and elsewhere, and whose personal charisma and political sense made him very influential.

The authors generally found that governors were influential and that key legislators were powerful and important. In most of the states studied, partisan politics, together with a constitutional system of representation, gave inordinate power to rural, small-town suburban, and overwhelmingly Republican forces. State boards of education were not seen to be strong in political influence; rather, they generally acted as sounding boards for ideas. More important roles were played by the Commissioner of Education, the Department of Education, and special study committees set up by legislators. While the classic use of the special committee appeared to be a conservative countervailing force to schoolmen, such committees in their work usually moved toward a somewhat more liberal stance (Bailey et al., 1962, pp. 25-39).













While a coalition could be powerful, opposition

forces or "depressants" also could be formidable. These forces included tax-minded business groups, conservative philosophies, rural location, and splintered schoolmen. Tax-minded business groups, while sometimes supporting schoolmen, were seen to have a general inclination, at every level of government, to oppose taxes which they saw as discriminatory. Even when new state taxes were seen as necessary a struggle ensued over the form of taxation--a sales tax or an income tax. The most pervasive depressant on state school subsidies, however, was found to be rural localism, since rural representatives were generally overrepresented in the state legislatures studied. These interests opposed any growth in power of the state government. Conservative tax-minded legislators supported frugality and localism in government. On occasion, powerful tax-minded governors of these states acted as depressants on state school aid. With this emphasis on frugality there was only a gradual improvement in state aid to education; not the sharp increases which the schoolmen wished (Bailey et al., 1962, pp. 45-47, 56).

In addition to the depressants noted above, the

most common handicap discerned in the study was the inability of schoolmen to work and speak as one. Disorder and












/
naivete appeared to be the schoolmen's outstanding political characteristics. Not only did official agencies rarely act in unison, but professional and private groups also were often split. Teachers were split into associations or unions; there were organizations also of principals, superintendents, guidance counsellors, vocational education, physical education, and classroom teachers. Similarly, other groups, such as parent-teachers, university women, league of women, and mental health organizations had their own special concerns or pet projects. Such a large number of special interests made it easy for lawmakers to play one group off against another or to ignore them (Bailey et al., 1962, pp. 51-53).

Bailey et al. (1962) concluded that while lawmakers acted favorably in those cases when interest groups agreed, there was an obvious lack of political sophistication among school interest groups. In the authors' opinion, cohesion, rather than fragmentation, would result in much greater success for educational interest groups in the legislative arena. The authors observed that schoolmen in most of the states recognized the value of unity and were striving for some form of collaborative endeavor. They stated in this regard that "The need is obvious and the trend toward cooperative action unmistakable" (p. 36).













Study of Three Mid-Western States


In'State Politics and the Public Schools, Masters, Salisbury, and Eliot (1964) analyzed the involvement of three state governments in education. Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri were selected principally because the researchers had access to influential political and educational leaders in these states. The basic research strategy of the study was to "look first at the groups, individuals, and governmental agencies that have a direct and tangible stake in the outcome of education decisions or have the formal responsibility for them" (p. 7). This effort was expected to lead the researchers to the sources of power and to political processes. The authors were concerned with

(a) possible generalized statements about how influentials in education politics made decisions; (b) whether policy decisions were in response to public pressure as opposed to organized interest groups; (c) whether power was in the hands of an identifiable power structure, or a fragmented power; (d) whether a distinctive political style significantly affected decisions; (e) to what extent policies were shaped by larger state political factors; and (f) factors which produced consensus or which generated controversy (p. 9).

Concerning methodology, the authors noted that

limitations of time and resources made it necessary'"to





28








sacrifice precison of technique in favor of less rigorous methods" (Masters et al., 1964, p. 10). Written documents such as constitutions and school codes of the three states were first examined. Interviews held with recognized political leaders and informed people were structured "in order to allow respondents to give as comprehensive a view as possible" (Masters et al., 1964, Appendix V). The authors' choice of supporting observation and interview data was a free one and followed no set standard of techniques and methods. A large part of their working material concerned the images and perceptions of those interviewed. Because of these conditions the authors admitted that their study yielded no "scientifically predictive generalizations" and avoided "normative judgments" (Masters et al., 1964, p. 10). Also used were existing studies of political systems in the three states, as well as publications from the United States Office of Education and the National Education Association. Politics of Education in Missouri

Missouri was characterized by Masters et al. (1964)

as a state with low-pressure politics. Schoolmen were organized in one major group, the Missouri State Teachers' Association (MSTA) which defined the school needs and presented them to the legislature. The MSTA, however, was careful to













adjust its proposals to the state's political traditions. In other words, the MSTA got what it wanted from the legislature provided it did not ask for too much. Administrators belonged to the MSTA and school board officials generally supported the MSTA proposals. MSTA opinions were generally regarded as "expert" in the public school field. To keep its position and to prevent divisiveness in front of the leqislature the MSTA took great care to avoid actions that would create division in the education lobby. For example, the MSTA did not press for teacher tenure laws or minimum salary laws. The MSTA also avoided local issues and local quarrels (Masters et al., 1964, p. 20).

As head of the unified education lobby presenting

proposals based on "detached, objective study" and supported by the "professional experts" in the state, the MSTA became recognized as the voice for improving the public schools. The MSTA leaders sought legislative support by working quietly with the political system rather than against it. The approach was to get what was possible with a minimum of agitation or conflict, rather than try broader public campaigns for larger objectives. The researchers concluded that a change in this approach would require a change in leadership of the MSTA staff who were as "much a part of the culture as the legislature" they worked with so closely.














The chief characteristic of MSTA activity was the "tactics of moderation of behalf of limited objectives" (Masters et al., 1964, pp. 20-26).

Missouri was a low-tax, low-service state, but relatively free of anti-labor legislation as well as rightist fringe groups (Masters et al., 1964, p. 37). Economic interest group alliance was apt to be ad hoc. No group sought to depart from existing conditions in any dramatic rapid way--in this sense, labor groups were as conservative as business groups. This emphasis, according to the researchers, "reinforces the norms of the system, minimizes conflict, and encourages group spokesmen to employ the legislative tactics of quiet persuasion without ideological ferment" (Masters et al., 1964, p. 39). On school issues major economic interests were at most of marginal importance. By adopting a strategy of accommodation, the MSTA "routinized" the decision-making process. While there was a seemingly durable power structure, elements of discontent were becoming evident. A teachers' union in St. Louis and growing demands for state services threatened to cause much more conflict than in the past (p. 98).














Educational Politics in Illinois

In many ways Illinois was similar to Missouri; both had foundation programs, and neither had an outstanding record in teacher welfare, although Illinois had at least a minimum salary for teachers and tenure laws. In both states the goals of professional educators were moderated to fit what the political system would comfortably allow. There was little controversy and parties did not divide on education questions; rather, there was a consensus pattern on school policy (Masters et al., 1964, p. 99).

Consensus in Illinois was reached through the

School Problems Commission (SPC). The SPC was created by the legislature in 1957 as a continuing agency and was delegated broad authority to study school matters and to advise the legislature. The 17 member group was comprised of ten persons appointed by the legislature, five appointed by the governor, and two ex-officio--the superintendent of public instruction, and the state director of finance. It was supported by a research director and staff. The governor's appointments included such key persons as the research director of the Illinois Education Association, representatives from the State Association of School Boards, and the secretary of legislation for the Illinois Agriculture Association. The formula used was "progress without













significant controversy." While the SPC had but advisory power, virtually all its recommendations had been incorporated into law (Masters et al., 1964, pp. 100, 110, 124-125).

Before the SPC there was no single locus or agency responsible on a continuing basis for formulating a state school program. Dissension and disunity among the education groups blurred their impact and disrupted any plan for a coordinated program which would define and limit the state's role. Programs were set up in response to suggestions by education interest groups or from ad hoc commissions of the legislature. The organized groups concerned with public school policy channeled major policy demands through the SPC and then adjusted or modified their demands in accordance with SPC decisions. The highest priority of the SPC was with finance and reorganization of school districts; teachers' welfare was given only secondary consideration or left to others, and some policy matters were not touched at all. The high integration meant also that party interests had little or no influence. The SPC was an arena in which the various and sometimes conflicting aims of organized groups could be compromised or decided upon (Masters et al., 1964, pp. 101, 147, 174).













Michigan Politics of Education

In Missouri and Illinois formulas were developed

to achieve consensus. But in Michigan there was no regular pattern of decision-making. The outcome of school policy recommendations was less predictable. Education interest groups were fragmented. There was cleavage between the two parties--one represented in the governor's office, the other in the legislature. There was also a sharp division between proponents of the public schools and the parochial or private schools. In the decade preceding the study the legislature was hostile or indifferent to groups advocating change in public school policy. There was no dominant spokesman for public schools. The Michigan Education Association (MEA) at one time acted similarly to the MSTA in Missouri. At the time of the study MEA's major resource was information, and it rarely mobilized its membership on political decisions. Legislators frequently relied on MEA for information, although the senate was more hostile to MEA. The MEA did not threaten legislators with reprisals at polls (Masters et al., 1964, pp. 180-186).

In addition to the MEA, some of the education

organizations involved in public school policy were the Michigan Association of School Administrators, the Michigan Association of County School Administrators, the Michigan












Federation of Teachers, and the Michigan Association of School Boards. These groups were unsuccessful in minimizing conflict over their demands. In the 1950's the state aid percentage declined. The legislature resisted proposals about adopting a foundation program, and there were no big strides in teacher welfare. Legislators disagreed about how taxes should be increased; Democrats were against a sales tax, and Republicans opposed income tax increases. Consensus did not work in Michigan and education interest groups were unable to exert much in the way of political pressure (Masters et al., 1964, pp. 207-214, 259, 260).


Review of the Study of Three States

Masters, Salisbury, and Eliot (1964) concluded

that educators must face "political realities" and "compete for scarce resources." Two of the states had a clearly identifiable power structure, while in Michigan the structure was fragmented and unpredictable. Education interests were a part of the leadership both in Missouri and Illinois, but in Michigan the governor and legislative leaders were frequently at odds. In the structured framework of Missouri and Illinois governmental leaders set a framework of permissable negotiation for those who sought to influence public school policy.













The authors found that public pressures or protests were significant only when the organized interest groups themselves used them in making claims upon governmental agencies. In Michigan, however, a slight difference was evident in that public support often appeared as "the only alternative" to deadlock. Conflicts over public school issues were contained in the two states with a visible structure--but not in Michigan. Strong counter-pressures were activated on issues that called for basic changes in revenue structure, and on issues which called for substantially increased school expenditures. Such pressures involved concern for "fiscal responsibility" and "high taxes."

In the three states studied legislators frequently singled out education interests as the most powerful within the state. Educational interest groups, however, frequently were not as effective as they might be because of a lack of "political know-how." Education interest groups tried to have governmental decisions on public schools made in a routine manner, and desired a predictable outcome even if it meant sacrificing policy alternatives. Representatives of interest groups often were forced to tailor their programs in order to achieve consensus.













Political officials felt that efforts for education offered few of the "traditional prizes," therefore they avoided direct involvement--except for legislators who became expert in this policy area and who had interest groups among their principal bases of support. A vital aspect of achieving policy was to have several legislators become "recognized experts" about this policy, and willing to "carry the ball" in government (Masters et al., 1964, pp. 262-276).


Four Types of State Lobbying Structures


In an analysis of state studies, Iannaccone (1967) made what has been recognized as perhaps the most significant examination and conceptual statement about state interest groups. Through a post-factum analysis, he developed a four-type typology (mentioned in the preface of this study) to describe the linkage between educational interest groups and government. Such a study was timely because, as Iannaccone stated, "public education at the local level continues to be increasingly dependent upon state monies for daily operation" (p. 37).

Iannaccone (1967) labelled the first type (Type I)

of linkage structure as "locally based disparate." In this













type schoolmen (a "squirearchy") represented their school districts in reaching accommodation with legislators. This model was seen to fit states having a rural character. Other characteristics noted were that the spokesmen were not classroom teachers but schoolmen (administrators, etc.), that accommodation of differing views took place inside the legislature, and that such groups were more effective in preventing legislation from being passed than in getting legislation passed. State-wide interest groups were of little consequence in states typical of Type I (p. 51).

The second category (Type II) was labelled a "statewide monolithic" structure and appeared to legislators to represent "the totality of the profession in their state." Accommodation of interests in this type of structure took place outside the legislature and inside the monolith. Decisions were compromises made within the monolith and presented to the legislature for ratification. However, even if the lobby could call the tune at times, it existed because of the legislature, not the other way around. Leaders of this type of lobby were masters of cooptation and consensus-building manipulation. Major components of this monolith usually included the NEA state affiliate, the school board association, one or more administrators'













associations, and some volunteer citizens' groups such as the parent teacher association. The state department of education was also normally found within the monolith. Presiding over this group were school administrators and ex-school administrators, and "scribblers" or academicians (Iannaccone, 1967, pp. 48-68).

Type II structures not only had the capacity to

prevent legislation from being passed, but had the capacity to initiate legislation. Educators generally were viewed positively in social service, but viewed low in power. Type I was labelled a "squirearchy," but Type II was labelled an "oligarchy." Iannaccone (1967) observed that this monolithic form fitted the politics "preferred by pedagogues," the "invisible" politics of an informal, closed system. While teachers were supposed to be represented in the pyramid of power they were less than adequately represented, even among office holders in their own associations (pp. 62-66).

The third type of structure (Type III) was designated

"state-wide fragmented." In this type the distinctions among educators became very visible to legislators who were then forced to take sides. Iannaccone (1967) argued that the existence of the monolithic structure was a necessary, even if not a sufficient, cause to produce a state-wide













fragmented pattern. The teachers' organization split off from the unified lobby and strove to bargain directly with the legislature. Clearly teachers were no longer interested in being represented by a leadership cadre in tune with administrators. In this type of structure the locus of accommodation for the differing views moved to the legislature. This form of representation Iannaccone (1967) referred to as a "polyarchy." Disputes over educational legislation were mediated or refereed by the legislature. Data, Iannaccone noted, were inconclusive about whether or not Type III was more powerful than Type II in legislative action (pp. 43, 48, 53, 55, 72).

The fourth type of structure (Type IV) was called

a "state-wide syndical." The linkage structure was a formal government commission or unit wherein interest grouplegislator decision-making took place. This type of elite Iannaccone (1967) termed a "synarchy" (pp. 43, 49-50). The condition which produced the syndical form was the deadlock caused by the competition and fragmentation of Type III. In this type, there is a reversion to the monopolistic structure noted in Type II, and the locus of accommodation is again reached outside the legislature, although in this coalition numerical strength is in the hands of legislators. This structure has broader coalitions than Type II. Because













of this, more internal bargaining takes place and this to some extent limits gains in educational legislation. Stability is restored, however, after the unstable Type III phase (pp. 50, 73).

Iannaccone (1967) observed that political life

displayed "alternating periods of relative homeostasis and abrupt change" (p. 38). He saw elements of alternation in the four phases or types described. The first phase was competitive among local components; the second phase, monopolistic on a state-wide basis; the third phase, competitive on a state-wide organization basis; and the fourth phase was monopolistic, though government regulated. Each phase was not, however, just a simple alternation of competitive and monopolistic power, because elements of the old phase survived and were recombined in the new organizational structure of the new phase. For example, a leading scribbler of Type I, or a crippled monolith of Type II may still function in a Type III or Type IV structure (pp. 38, 79-80).


Study by Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz


Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz (1969) collected data from 12 states concerning the influences of the environment and political institutions on educational issues. These authors













observed that the basis on which resources were allocated for education was "fragmented." Not only was education directed from three levels of government, but it was financed from a "grab-bag" of sources. Of particular concern to them was the line of division between public schools and higher education. They examined the present relationship between educational levels, and the ways in which this relationship affected political processes. The study of each state included sections on the organization of education, crucial issues in interlevel relationships, and some conclusions about the future (pp. 1-3, 11).

From an analysis of issues in Florida, the authors commented that teacher militancy outbursts "have had significant implications" because the state aid formula was based on salaries developed cooperatively by the Department of Education and the Florida Education Association. Since legislative sessions were (at the time), so short and infrequent, the legislature relied heavily on outside guidance. The FEA was considered to be "the most influential private group in determining education policy" (Usdan et al., 1969, p. 26). Teacher militancy, however, was alienating many groups formerly allied with the FEA. While the university spokesmen did not feel that state support was adequate for













their needs, public school spokesmen feared that junior colleges and universities were outpoliticing them in the legislature (pp. 26-31).

Usdan et al. (1969) reported that their research was drawn primarily from two sources--interviews, and published documents. Key informants were selected from each state, and they "usually" included education officials, executive agency officials, legislators, legislative staff members, leaders and staff of education-related groups, knowledgeable citizens, and newspaper people. In addition, supplementary evidence was used from a variety of reports, statistical documents, staff studies, and newspapers. The interviews were "undirected" in nature, and the list of questions used as a guide varied somewhat to fit the role of the interviewer. The authors observed that both the selection of the sample and the "design of the project limited its capacity to produce systematic generalization" (pp. 4-5).

In integrating findings from the 12 states studied, the authors found a good deal of similarity, including important new shifts which were underway in most states. The high value placed on education had enhanced the power of the profession and brought it into close relationship with lay groups. Educational coalitions were formed, built around












the teachers' associations, and these coalitions were critical elements in the politics of elementary and secondary education. Neither branch of government was found to be strong, coherent, or well-equipped. Governors often lacked adequate staff and effective tools for dealing with the legislature. Legislators generally were ill-organized, ill-staffed, and submerged by a flood of work. They, in effect, had to delegate initiatives to private interests and state agencies. This resulted in a piecemeal state policy which was slow to respond to changing social needs (pp. 167-178).

The authors of this study, however, saw evidence that the traditional form (coalition) of educational politics was breaking down, the most obvious cause for the breakdown being the rise of teacher militancy. With the alteration and perhaps decline of the "professional" establishment the role of the state structure had become unsettled. Legislatures that once looked for its cues on educational policy were losing their sources of certainty about what was educationally acceptable and politically feasible. The "cumbrousness" of the typical state structure for governing education explained in part the inability of these agencies to move strongly into leadership positions. The authors












speculated that since the "familiar political defenses" of elementary and secondary education were down, the legislatures might take on greater responsibility for policy formulation (Usdan et al., 1969, pp. 168, 171-172).



Educational Coalitions


Michael Usdan, one of the authors of the previously

discussed study, in 1969 published an article entitled "The Role and Future of State Educational Coalitions." He reported, from a 1966 report published by the National Council of State Education Associations, that coalitions or cooperation was a general feature of state interest groups. Of the 48 states surveyed, 27 had some kind of cooperating council or organization, and many other states developed cooperation through less formally structured coalitions or lobbies. Usdan (1969) stated, however, that developments in the late 1960's made it difficult for coalitions to survive using their traditional strategies. Teacher militancy and aggressive organizational rivalry had increasingly estranged teacher groups from traditional organizational allies. This was most acute in the major industrialized states where organized labor was influential (pp. 27-31, 33-34).

Some other factors noted by Usdan (1969) in the

weakening of educational coalitions were (a) a pull toward












localism because local associations were becoming the strong link in teachers' organizations, (b) different primary interests at the local versus the state level,

(c) the fragmentation within the ranks of professional organizations (administrators no longer were a part of the teachers' associations), (d) the altering political complexion of many states as reapportionment gave suburban areas more seats, (e) the leadership style of many educational lobbies was attuned to the political style of rurally dominated legislatures, and (f) administrative agencies at all levels of government were becoming more influential (pp. 35-37).

Usdan (1969) predicted a dangerous power vacuum

which educational lobbies must strive to fill if public education was not to suffer. Future effectiveness of educational lobbies would depend upon (a) a new lay leadership to offset the effects of fragmented teachers' associations, (b) more long-range planning by educational lobbies, (c) a closer relationship between schools and higher education, (d) full-time staff, and (e) greater financial support (pp. 38, 39).














Educational Governance Project


The 1973 Educational Governance Project (EGP) was

a twelve-state study primarily using structured interviews with different policy actors, including legislative leaders and state board members (Campbell & Mazzoni, 1976, p. 20). This two and one-half year study was funded by the United States Office of Education and was conducted at Ohio State University.

According to Campbell and Mazzoni (1976) the purpose of the study was not to generate hypotheses but to search for significant data about how state public school policy was determined. The orientation of the study emphasized relationships among the actors within educational policy systems at each stage--issue definition, proposal formulation, support mobilization, and decision enactment. Education policy was presumed to be a competitive process and the explanation for policy decisions was based upon the patterns of accommodation among competing actors (pp. 4-8).

The 12 states studied were selected according to the way in which the state board and the chief state school officer were selected, since it was assumed that these variables would be central to the governance models that













would eventually be developed. Other factors considered in the selection of states for the study were (a) the inclusion of states of large population, (b) states representing major regions of the country, (c) states with recent court interventions, (d) several pairs of comparable state situations (e.g. political, cultural, and socioeconomic development), and (e) states had to have available background data (Campbell & Mazzoni, 1976, pp. 15, 16).

After background data were collected on the 12 states, preliminary visits were made to confer with "informants." Then teams composed of two or three research associates spent three weeks in each of the states using two approaches--the issue area approach, and the policy systems (and reputational) approach. Since policy-making might not be the same for different issues, various kinds of decisions were investigated. Four major issues were to be considered in each state according to perceived importance as commented upon by several key actors in each state, and according to involvement of actors and governmental institutions in the issue area. Included in the study was data for all 12 states in each of four issue areas--school finance, professional certification, racial desegregation, and educational program improvement.













Campbell and Mazzoni (1976) described the method used in the EGP study as

an examination of diverse sources including
newspaper files, official documents and reports,
interest group publications, and other written
materials. The research team also conducted interviews with both issue participants and
knowledgeable informants. Issue-oriented interviews were not highly structured; nor was a
single interview schedule used with all respondents. . .interviewers were to draw selectively
from a list of basic questions. (p. 18)

Besides the issue information noted above, perceptions of major actors were obtained about role performances (influence) in policy-making relationships. Ten different structured interview schedules were constructed for these major participants in each state. Over 400 interviews were held with these policy actors. The authors emphasized that the 12 EGP states did not create a probability sample, and that generalizations made pertained only to the states studied.

Significant findings were as follows:

1. The ten state boards studied were not widely viewed as significant actors in the legislative arena.

2. There was no systematic relationship between

the influence of the CSSO in the legislature area and his influence in the agency area.

3. CSSOs exerted in general great influence in the state agency arena.













4. CSSOs varied in extent of involvement in educational policy-making.

5. Governors varied in extent of involvement in

educational policy-making; those more involved were from states where legislatures had greater technical effectiveness.

6. In most states the education lobby was seen as fragmented, but no state fell into the syndical category (Iannaccone's Type IV).

7. State legislatures played the most vital role in the determination of educational policy.

8. The education lobby was among the top groups

in education policy influence. The weakest rating noted was in Florida.

9. Teachers' associations ranked highest when compared with the school board associations, administrators' associations, and teachers' federations; the school board associations ranked second; administrators made a poor showing.

In commenting further upon the results of the EGP

study, Mazzoni and Campbell (1976) stated that non-educators were becoming more involved in school policy-making; pluralism, however, was being countered by centralizing trends caused by costs, and a trend toward the bifurcated pattern caused by a labor-management cleavage. They wrote that













By the beginning of 1970's influence in many state education policy systems had become diffuse, relationships were in flux, and power in these systems
was "up for grabs." Former allies, notably the
school boards association and the teacher associations,
were publicly at odds on a host of employer-employee
issues. (p. 2)

In writing about the EGP studies, Mazzoni (1978) observed that a disunity among educators was associated with diminished influence for both the education lobby and the CSSO. He predicted greater pluralism including legislators acting on educational issues (pp. 159-160). The role of the legislature as an actor rather than a referee was suggested in 1951 by David Truman in The Government Process. Some of the most challenging assignments were those of locating the sources of initiation of educational policy and of identifying the roles of government actors (pp. xxvi-xxxi).

Raphael Nystrand (1976), another participant in the EGP, interpreted findings in terms of Iannaccone's four structured types of linkage of organized state education interest groups and the legislature. He noted that the data indicated that Iannaccone was essentially correct in arguing that states would shift from Type II to Type III. In state-wide fragmented cases the diminished stature of the administrator contrasted markedly with the position of dominance noted by Iannaccone in the state-wide













monolithic type. Nystrand (1976) suggested that Iannaccone's categories oversimplified reality in that they ignored the policy-making roles of governors, CSSOs, state boards of education, legislatures, and other interest groups. The EGP study found that both governors and CSSOs were influential. As an example, Nystrand stated that much of the impetus for change in the Florida foundation formula could be attributed to the efforts of urban legislators who responded to their constituents (pp. 260-261).



General Analysis of State Studies


From the review of multiple state case studies noted above, there has been a change in cohesion versus fragmentation of educational interest groups over time. In 1962 Bailey, Frost, Marsh, and Wood perceived coalition with little party divisions in the eight states studied. In the opinion of these authors, cohesion rather than fragmentation would produce greater legislative gains for public school education. In 1964 Masters, Salisbury, and Eliot found that cohesion or coalition was the dominant form in two of the three states studied. However, fragmentation and political arena conflict were noted in one of the states. In this state support for public school education had declined in the decade previous to the study.













From a study of 12 states in 1968 Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz found important new shifts underway which were breaking down the traditional cohesive forms of educational politics. These authors speculated that the legislatures themselves might take on greater responsibility for policy formulation. Usdan predicted a dangerous power vacuum which might be to the detriment of public education. Campbell and Mazzoni, involved with the 1973 Educational Governance Project, found a fragmented lobby in most of the 12 states studied, and that state legislatures played the most vital role in determining educational policy. These authors, however, found that the education lobby was perceived to be among the top groups in influence on educational policy. This observation was in contradiction to the expectation or speculation of the authors of the earlier studies.

Martin Burlingame and Terry G. Geske (1979) made a comprehensive examination of the multiple state case studies involving politics in education. They commented that the chief sources of data for these studies were historical documents and elite interviews. Not only were interview schedules and methods used to select interviewees generally not available, but it was clear that interview schedules were not rigidly structured or uniform and that a reputational














technique was used to select interviewees. Only Mazzoni and Campbell included their interview schedule, but their interviewers were to draw selectively from the basic questions.

In the opening paragraph of their article, Burlingame and Geske (1979) discussed the "new politics" of education. They observed that many scholars and others have suggested a dramatic change in the state politics of education in the past decade. Collective bargaining, teacher militancy, and pressures for fiscal restraint were forces which have stimulated the fragmentation of educational coalitions. Public attitudes were concerned with limited growth and more fiscal austerity. Education was seen to be in overt competition with other governmental services for fiscal resources. These factors characterized the new politics of a highly pluralistic and politicized decision-making process (p. 50).

After reviewing the studies these authors concluded that there was not much evidence that a new politics existed in state level educational politics; rather, they suggested that the politics of education is still a politics of interest groups. They observed, however, that further investigation is necessary to accurately assess whether or not there is a new politics of education. Five areas for












future research in order to build a body of knowledge were suggested: (a) the professionalizing tendencies of state governments, (b) the trade-offs between professional status and increasing funding, (c) the role of public opinion, (d) the changes occurring over time, and (e) the relations among various levels of government.

In speaking about the theoretical framework for these studies, Burlingame and Geske (1979) stated that, as in the field of sociology, most of the studies lacked rigor. While they termed these studies an important starting point, the authors stated that "most of the studies we reviewed permit neither theory formulation nor theory testing. Finally, few of the authors seemed deeply concerned about the use of their case studies to generate larger theoretical frames" (p. 65).

Susan Fuhrman (1980) in "School Finance Reform in the 1980s," noted that in the 1970's a variety of forces increased the influence of legislatures, and particularly governors, and "decreased the cohesiveness of the educational establishment" (p. 123). She stated that the most interesting political developments of the 1980's "may be" the realignment of education interests, especially if educators are to survive the political, demographic, and fiscal maelstroms that lie ahead. Fuhrman predicted the return of the education lobby in some revised form (pp. 123-124).













Summary



Literature about state educational lobbies was reviewed to obtain information about the effectiveness of fragmentation of such lobbies versus unity of these lobbies. In a study by Bailey, Frost, Marsh, and Wood (1962) of eight northeastern states, the authors found that a coalition, or a unity, of these lobbies was the dominant characteristic, and it was perceived that cooperative action was the more successful way to influence educational policy-making. In a 1964 study by Masters, Salisbury, and Eliot, the authors found that a fragmented lobby was likely to result in a high degree of uncertainty for educational lobby groups, and that these groups perceived they would be more successful with a unified approach and resulting predictable decision-making. Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz (1969) studied 12 states and found, despite important shifts underway, that coalitions were very influential factors in educational policy-making. Changes noted, however, involved teacher militancy and the breaking down of coalitions. These authors speculated that with a lack of unity in education the legislature might take on greater responsibility for policy formulation.













Campbell and Mazzoni (1976) reported on the 1973 Educational Governance Project involving a study of 12 states. They found fragmentation a prevailing pattern with state legislatures playing the most vital role in determining educational policy. Teachers' organizations, however, ranked highest in influence of the educational groups, and the educational lobby was ranked among the top groups in policy influence. In reviewing these and other case studies Burlingame and Geske (1979) stated that these studies permitted neither theory formulation nor theory testing.

Iannaccone (1967), in a well-known post-factum

examination of some state studies, developed a four-stage typology to describe educational interest groups and government structure. In this typology, it was suggested that states passed through four stages of structure:

(a) locally based disparate, (b) state-wide monolithic,

(c) state-wide fragmented, and (d) state-wide syndical. Iannaccone could not predict, from the data available, whether or not a state-wide monolithic structure (coalition) was more or less powerful than a state-wide fragmented lobby.















CHAPTER THREE
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
CONCERNING INTEREST GROUPS



Introduction


The studies concerning educational interest groups noted in the previous chapter indicated, or predicted, what might come about in terms of state educational interest groups. Yet, with the exception of Iannaccone's typology, these studies have been noted as lacking theoretical formulation.

The writer has reviewed literature from political

science and organizational fields in an attempt to develop a theoretical perspective to apply to state educational interest groups. The terms "lobby," "pressure group," and "interest group" evoke different emotions among most citizens. These terms and the more recently used "single interest group" have a somewhat sinister or selfish meaning to many citizens, for they are viewed as working against good governmental decisions. Yet, many other citizens view these terms positively and see these interest groups as ways in which citizen interests are properly expressed. Truman (1951)













was among political writers who gave interest groups legitimacy and, in effect, saw interest groups as the essential elements of what we call government.

The purpose of this chapter is to review relevant literature about the theory of interest groups including discussion of how and why they are formed and why people participate in them. Also discussed in this chapter are coalitions, the usefulness of typologies in understanding groups, and the developing role of legislatures and legislative staffs. Finally, the chapter is concluded with a theoretical discussion and a statement of propositions to be examined in the study.



Unified Lobbies or Coalitions



The effect of the fragmentation of unified interest

groups or coalitions is a central theme of this dissertation. Consequently, the literature was reviewed concerning this aspect of interest groups. Several writers have commented upon the cohesion or fragmentation of an organized lobby or interest group. For example, Truman (1951) stated that instability was endemic to political interest groups (p. 210). It is not surprising then that Wilson (1973) stated that organizations rarely form lasting coalitions (p. 267).













Clearly, if integrative mechanisms do not work, there are forces ready to fragment the organization. Easton (1957) also noted that an individual is ready to shift allegiance from one set of political authorities to another if there is a considerable disparity between perceived and desired images about the system. He noted, however, that the range of variation compatible with the maintenance of a political system would have to be settled empirically rather than theoretically (pp. 313-315). Concerning a fragmented lobby, Browne (1977) observed that it was outrageous to think that legislative decision-making could be helped by a plethora of interest groups each articulating a contradictory position (p. 55). Since resources are scarce, cooperation, rather than undermining, is necessary.

Individuals who make up a coalition are likely to be similar in respect to age, sex, social class, and ideology (Wilson, 1973, p. 270). Therefore, sharp changes in these homogeneous factors would be expected to produce disturbances which in turn may lead to fragmentation.


Typologies of Organization

As noted in Chapter Two, Iannaccone's analysis of

state educational studies resulted in his four-type typology to describe the linkage between educational interest groups












and government. From a welter of data a conceptual scheme or pattern was found or developed which helped to provide insight into and understanding of these events. In addition to descriptive categories, a typology may include a dynamic or predictive dimension. For example, Iannaccone predicted a movement over time from Type I to Type IV. A typology then may be a very useful and insightful way of grouping or classifying events and the relationship between events. Blau and Scott (1962) referred to a typology as a multidimensional classification (p. 41).

A variety of typologies about organizations are contained in organizational literature. Some of these typologies are somewhat similar and related to the composite theory which is discussed later in this chapter. Therefore, mention is now made of several of these typologies as an introduction to this section.

Clark and Wilson (1961) analyzed an organization in terms of major incentives offered to its members. Material incentives were related to tangible goods, such as jobs and taxes; solidary incentives were related to socializing and friendship; and purposive incentives were related to ideological satisfactions (pp. 129-166). A somewhat similar typology was found in studies of small groups by Benne and Sheats (1948) through an analysis of functional roles (using factor analysis). These roles were (a) a group task role involving













group effort to reach group goals; (b) a group-maintenance role involving the strengthening of the group by affective and supportive relations; and (c) individual roles involving the satisfaction of the individual's needs through such activities as personal recognition and aggression (pp. 44-48).

Simon (1957) also used a tripartite typology in

considering the types of participants in an organization. The three types were (a) the customer, who valued organizational objectives; (b) the entrepreneur who was concerned with how the organization operated internally; and

(c) the employee who obtained personal goals (pp. 114-117). Blau and Scott (1962) developed a typology of organizations based on the prime beneficiary (cui bono) of the organiza-tion. They noted (a) mutual benefit associations whose prime beneficiary was the membership; (b) business concerns with owners as the prime beneficiaries; (c) service organizations where the client was the prime beneficiary; and

(d) commonweal organizations where the public at large was the prime beneficiary (pp. 42-43).


Three Theories to Analyze Interest Groups

A review of literature revealed at least three

distinct groups of theories for analyzing interest groups which may be termed (a) sociological theory; (b) exchange












theory, and (c) rational theory. These theories are discussed in the following paragraphs, and a theoretical framework for this study is developed from these theories.


Sociological Theory

Truman's (1951) comprehensive work, The Governmental Process, is the major basis for the sociological theory. In analyzing Canadian teacher interest groups, Manzer (1969) called Truman's theory of organization "the sociological theory." According to Mahood (1967), Truman resurrected and modified concepts expounded in Arthur F. Bentley's The Process of Government (published in 1908) concerning group activity; and Truman's speculative study of groups added much to the understanding of the political process (p. 18). Garson termed Truman's The Governmental Process a "modern classic" which became a central part of a new period of growth in political science; one which emphasized the interest group approach to politics (Garson, 1978, p. 9).

Another important work involving pluralism and groups was Dahl's Who Governs? (1961), involving the study of decision-making processes in New Haven. This work became a pluralist classic, and supported Dahl's earlier stated view of government machinery as being divided and subdivided with "numerous groups of officials in competition and conflict with each other" (Dahl, 1956, p. 137). The













methodology used became known as the decision-making (a decision analysis) approach to studying power structures. Generally, the pluralistic view supported (a) the widespread sharing of power by groups and individuals (fragmentation) in decision-making, (b) reciprocal power relationships, and (c) changes in influence over time and from issue to issue (Peterson, 1974, p. 359).

The publication of The Governmental Process at the height of the cold war may be of significance in helping to explain its widespread influence within the scholarly community. In the early 1950's extreme conservatism appeared to be the form of mass politics. Scholars, however, generally were liberal in outlook, and stressed the value of pluralistic politics which allowed organized interest groups to be heard and the consequences of policy to be debated (Wilson, 1973, p. 344). In a pluralistic system, Presthus (1964) observed that political power was fragmented among the branches of government and shared between the state and a multitude of private groups and individuals (p. 10). Group pressures were essentially beneficial to society because they were constantly moderated by pressures resulting from widespread overlapping group memberships (Truman, 1951, pp. 158-168). According to Lindblom (1968) interest groups were "important instruments" for helping legislators by





64







showing them with "fact and analysis" how to reach a decision (p. 66). They were seen then to provide an essential information service. While the operation of pressure groups (political pluralism) was sometimes chaotic and sometimes selfish, the fact that they could pursue their interests freely and openly was a sign "that our political processes are in a healthy state" (Mahood, 1967, p. 303).

Truman (1951) argued that governmental decisions

are the result of effective access to government by various interests. He noted that the stability of these decisions depended upon the strength of the supporting interests and on the severity of disturbances in the society which affected that strength (p. 507). Truman explained the organization of groups in terms of reaction to environmental disturbances which upset established patterns of interaction. A profound disturbance may result in the formation of an association to stabilize group relations. Modern society has produced more interactions between people, and pressure group politics is related to the degree to which a society is modernized. A disturbance, then, may set off a "wave" of interest groups or establish patterns of interaction which not only form and guide the attitudes and behavior of their pariticipants but attempt to exert power over other groups. Truman argued that the behavior which constituted the process of government













could not be adequately understood apart from groups-especially active organized interest groups (pp. 43, 59, 502-505).

An organization's effective access to government

involved (a) the group's position in society--its status, how it plays the rules of the game, whether government officials are members, and its usefulness as a source of information; (b) factors internal to the group--the degree of organization, cohesion, leadership skills, resources; and

(c) the structure of legislative institutions (Truman, 1971, pp. 506-507).

This sociological approach to the understanding of

interest groups emphasized the environment, disturbances in relationships, the resulting formation or adaptation of interest groups, cohesion of interest groups, their power over members, and their ability to obtain access to government. While government may be more than a passive participant, government action, independent of pressure group influence, was not stressed. And, of course, individual action was largely controlled by group norms and activities. In summary, the formation and political actions of groups was a spontaneous process stimulated by forces acting on people, rather than the result of an elite leadership activity.













Exchange Theory of Groups

In an introduction to the second edition of The

Governmental Process, written twenty years after the first edition, Truman (1971) stated that if he were rewriting the book he would give considerably more prominence to the function of the elite in the organization (p. xliv). The role of the elite in policy-making was documented by Floyd Hunter in Community Power Structure (1953). Hunter found that a relatively few prominent persons dictated policymaking in a large community of 500,000 people. This was further developed on the state level by Hunter (1959) in his description of politics in South Carolina. Hunter's South Carolina views seemed to be corroborated by the study reported by McMillan (1963). In the monopolistic structure observed by McMillan, many of the elite did not hold public office. Hunter's methodology was based on survey research of the reputational aspect of power, using in-depth interviews of prominent persons (Nunnery and Kimbrough, 1971, p. 26).

Salisbury (1969) concentrated upon the role of the entrepreneur or elite who made potential members aware of the benefits of joining an organization. His argument was that interest group formation, growth, death, and lobbying activity can be explained by regarding them as "exchange relationships between entrepreneurs/organizers, who invest













in a set of benefits, which are then offered to potential members" (p. 2). The success of an organization was then dependent upon the quality of entrepreneurship which involved a mutually satisfactory exchange between the members and the entrepreneur. This view of organizational development focussed upon the leader as the main impetus, rather than disturbances in society.

Salisbury (1969) further argued that the sociological theory did not adequately explain organizational failures. He stated that it was the entrepreneur, not the group, in an organization who was the initiator of the enterprise. He recognized the importance of ideological factors in organizational development, and noted also that groups which stressed values exclusively were unstable and transient (pp. 7-20).

In examining 83 public interest groups, Berry (1978) found that about two-thirds of them were initiated by entrepreneurs and only about one-third initiated by disturbances. He concluded that many organizations existed simply because of the single-minded determination and the self-sacrifice of the entrepreneur (pp. 395-397).

From an analysis of studies of small groups, Verba (1961) concluded that the degree to which a charismatic leader identified with the membership gave him leeway to














deviate somewhat from group norms. The leader had what was termed "acceptance capital." Verba observed that the rejection of one leader often aided the process of change because of a tendency of followers to suspend the rules for a new leader during what was often a short honeymoon period (pp. 201-203).

From a series of studies concerning political

alienation, David C. Schwartz, a political scientist, reasoned that the individual

will reinvest the identification he withdrew from the political system (and its leaders, groups, ideologies, etc.) if the counter-elites, counter-groups, countercultures that are bidding for his support convince him that his value conflict and his perceptions of
inefficacy will thereby be reduced or reversed.
(Schwartz, 1973, p. 28)

Individuals become alienated when they perceive that the political system is incapable of being consistent with their fundamental politicized values. They withdraw identification from it; and since the link between these values and conformist behavior is thereby weakened, they are likely to select a new and nonconformist behavior mode (Schwartz, 1973, p. 159). Hence new leadership may more readily sell a new approach.

In a study of regional educational organizations in Florida, Ralph Kimbrough (1979) concluded that survival or death of the organization was more related to leadership













and organizational arrangement than to destructive forces in the environment (p. 41). Of course, throughout history the examples of the impact of dedicated leaders upon organizations are numerous.

According to the exchange theory, it is the

entrepreneur (leader, organizer, elite) who makes members or potential members aware of the benefits of the organization, or of a change in organization. Particularly if members have doubts about their efficacy in the system or organization, there is fertile ground for new leadership with new values. The skill, charisma, and commitment of the leader is an important ingredient in the formation, or reformation, and success of many interest groups. This second approach suggested for analyzing educational interest group formation and fragmentation is to stress the prime importance of dedicated leadership, and the potential for ideological commitment involving a change in norms.


Rational Theory of Interest Groups

Olson's The Logic of Collective Action (1965) is

the basis for the rational theory of interest groups. His work is based upon the assumptions about group theory involving the "costs and benefits of alternative courses














of action open to individuals in groups of different sizes" (p. 21). These relationships include such factors as cost, the rate at which the good is obtained, the size of the group, the fraction of the group gain each individual receives, the group gain, and the individual gain.

Olson (1965) stressed the importance of the rational and self-interested individual rather than charismatic leadership, and questioned the group theory assumption that groups of individuals with coidmon interests would attempt to further these common interests. A rational individual calculates the costs and benefits of belonging to an organization and will join only if the benefits are at least as great as the costs of belonging (pp. 1-2, 48-51).

Olson expressed his assumptions in mathematical

form and solved for varying arrangements of the factors. Olson provided, however, a "non-technical" summary and explanation of his work and avoided using the diagrammaticmathematical language of economics where feasible. As an economist using the tools of economic theory, he pointed out that his conclusions were just as relevent to the sociologist and tile political scientist as to the economist (pp. 21-23).













Olson (1965) commented about large groups:

A lobbying organization, or indeed a labor union
or any other organization, working in the interests
of a large group of firms or workers in some
industry, would get no assistance from the rational,
self-interested individuals in that industry.
This would be true even if everyone in the industry were absolutely convinced that the proposed program
was in their interest. (p. 11)

In a very small group, however, where each member gets a substantial proportion of the total gain simply because there are few members, a collective good can be provided by the voluntary contributions of members. They can see the perceptible difference their contribution makes to benefits of belonging to the organization (p. 34).

By Olson's argument, rational self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests. If a public or collective good cannot be withheld from others in the group, only a selective economic incentive will stimulate a rational individual in a latent group to act in a group-oriented way.

In commenting upon the development of the study of interest groups since 1951, Truman (1971) stated that the most suggestive theoretical contribution in this time period was made by Olson. Truman (1971) said:













Briefly, the thrust of Olson's argument is that
a large aggregate of individuals sharing a common
interest will not, if they are acting rationally
and economically, come together as a lobbying
organization, since the product of so doing is a collective or public good--that is, a good that cannot be derived to anyone in the aggregate who
refuses to "buy" in (in this case, to join the organization and pay dues). In the absence of coercion or some kind of inducement that can be restricted to participants (those who "buy") the
public good will not be produced (the organization will not be formed), assuming that the individuals
in the aggregate are numerous and that they are
acting in a rational, economizing fashion.
(p. xxviii)

In a 1969 article Manzer contrasted the "economic" theory of interest groups as developed by Olson with the "sociological" theory as mentioned above. In applying these theories to Canadian teachers' associations, Manzer found that there was evidence not only of a sociological explanation for the formation of teachers' associations, but that there was evidence that one or more selective inducements contributed to the establishment and maintenance of these associations. For example, the rapid formation of teachers' associations in the early 1900's was in tune with Truman's proposition that "severe disturbances" produce associations to stabilize group relations. Disturbances noted included teacher dissatisfaction with salaries which did not keep pace with war-time inflation, post-war ideas of social equality, willingness of groups to get involved in politics, compulsory education laws,













shortages of teachers, and urbanization. In addition to these factors teachers' organizations could provide such selective incentives as "individual protective services, professional exchange, and social initiatives" (pp. 106-107). In reviewing the automatic membership provisions of Canadian teachers' associations, Manzer concluded that little influence would be lost if such provisions were withdrawn, but that it would be very different if selective benefits were withdrawn (p. 114).

Because Manzer (1969) observed that teacher

behavior in joining associations was not always rational he reformulated Olson'a theory to incorporate relevent ideas from sociological theory (such as collective benefits). By expressing these assumptions in mathematical form and analyzing them, Manzer concluded that Olson's assumptionof individual rationality was not weakened by the addition of collective benefits, and in the absence of selective inducements or coercion "a pressure group cannot be successfully maintained over time" (p. 116).

Pamela Oliver (1980) stated that the "rationality of collective action varies from situation to situation, depending upon the cost of the good, its value to an individual, the probability that the good would be provided without contribution, and the effect of group size on













these conditions. In a theoretical analysis of rewards and punishments as selective incentives for collective action she explained (using mathematical models as did Olson) that positive and negative selective incentives have different structural implications when used to induce collective action. Positive selective incentives are given to "those who have cooperated," while negative selective incentives are distributed to those who have not cooperated. She concluded that positive incentives are especially efficient in a relatively small proportion of a group (an elite), whereas negative incentives are needed to ensure unanimous cooperation (mass of membership) in costly collective action, but have side effects of disharmony (p. 1364).

Moe (1980a), in "A Calculus of Group Membership," also extended Olson's work by relaxing assumptions to allow for a broader range of individual values and perceptions, such as ideology, social pressures, and efficacy. Moe commented that two types of criticism had been expressed about Olson's views: one contended that other kinds of incentives influenced the individual's decision, such incentives as ideology, moral principles, and social pressures; the other criticism was that individuals were not "perfectly informed" about the costs and benefits of













political success, and that "subjective estimates" of such quantities may well place a higher value on politics. Most formal extensions of Olson's model were "essentially efforts to develop the original analysis of collective goods with greater rigor" including "the optimal provision of collective good, the relationship between optimality and group size, the role of income effects, the existence of equilibrium solutions." Moe suggested that this kind of approach did not address some of the most basic aspects of interest groups (pp. 594-595).

To look at these aspects Moe (1980a) attempted to build on Olson's analyses by relaxing the assumption of perfect information; by taking dues, selective incentives and collective goods into account simultaneously as influencing an individual's choice; and by allowing for non-economic inducements, since people "join groups for reasons ranging from ideological commitment to perceptions of efficacy," not just for economic inducements (p. 567). Moe concluded from his mathematical analysis that an individual will join the group when "the value of selective incentives exceeds the amount kept by the organization plus the amount wasted on politics" (p. 613). An allowance for efficacy leads to a more politicized perspective on group membership than the one popularized by Olson. Non-economic incentives may also affect an individual's













evaluation of collective goods and selective benefits. For example, purposive incentives based on values, political ideology, and notions of right and wrong may be very important. In addition, solidary selective incentives involving social pressure may provide important, if somewhat intangible, benefits. When efficacy and non-material incentives come into play politics need not be a by-product at all. Some individuals may "rationally join" an organization for political reasons and/or social activities. Moe concluded that something beyond the "logic of membership" (which involved the setting up of assumptions and the use of mathematical equations) was now needed, that something being an emphasis on empirical research (pp. 615-630).

In a recent book, The Organization of Interests,

Moe (1980b) stated that the pluralist tradition suffered a "dramatic setback" with the appearance of The Logic of Collective Action in which Olson flatly discounted the core pluralist belief that interest groups arose on the basis of common interests. According to Moe, Olson's presentation was "an economic theory of interest groups," and Olson's central concepts of collective benefits and selective incentives were well suited for "capturing the essence of how interest groups emerge and what goes on inside them" (pp. 3-5).













In his book Moe (1980b) again suggested that

Olson's original model was too restrictive even if it was well suited to the mathematical techniques of economic importance. Olson's model assumed that every individual was rational, that the individual was perfectly informed and premised his decisions on specified types of information, and that the individual valuated alternatives on the basis of specified values (pp. 13-15). In Moe's presentation, these restrictions are relaxed, and Moe included the importance of the entrepreneur and the importance of sociological factors. Moe agreed that important aspects of Olson's work were supportable, such as the crucial motivational role of selective incentives, the idea that political activities are largely by-products of the sale of selective incentives, and the suggestions that there is no necessary congruence between member goals and group goals. However, while the individual may primarily seek economic gain rather than purposive or solidary gains, this does not mean that politics is unimportant, nor that purposive and solidary incentives can be ignored. Otherwise there would be an incomplete and inadequate explanation of group membership (pp. 199-200).













Moe and others, then, have noted the importance of the contribution of Olson's rational, self-interested man approach to interest group theory. Yet there are incentives, other than economic, which are to be taken into consideration. This statement is not particularly startling, since observation of people, in educational groups at least, supports the importance of emotive, ideological, and social incentives. A comprehensive model for understanding interest groups should, in the opinion of the writer, include group benefits, ideological benefits or thrusts, and individual benefits.



The Legislature as an Initiator


Truman (1971) saw society as setting the rules

regarding fair play which defined appropriate behavior for legislators, and he suggested that groups whose demands would require these forbidden behaviors were likely to get a cool reception by legislators (pp. 232, 349-350).

Many but not all writers ignored the role of the government itself in initiating action. Odegard (1958) chastized group theorists for regarding public policy as simply the parallelograms of group forces; and while it was reasonable to reject rationality as the sole factor in political decision-making, it was not reasonable to













reject rationality as a factor in political decisionmaking, nor was it reasonable to banish the idea of a rational decision-maker motivated by the public interest (p. 699).

Dearlove (1973) also questioned theories about

public policy-making which always assumed a dominant role for interest groups over weak and passive governments. He suggested that such mechanistic input-output models did not distinguish between the operational and the psychological environment and overlooked the reaction and attitudes of legislators. Rather than government being controlled by the environment, he suggested that government is able to control and shape those aspects of the environment which affect government activity. Knowledge of the rules of access, of informational sources, and of the ideology of legislators is also very important, and therefore the simple pressure group theory was an inadequate explanation; it failed to record the initiative and strong response which could come from the legislature (pp. 58-59, 173-175, 230).

In 1976 Putnam reported on interest group research conducted in Canada and the United States. This research involved 2400 interviews of randomly selected members of political elites--legislators, senior civil servants, and interest group directors in Washington and Ottawa, as













well as in three states and three provinces. The aims of this research were to describe and explain group structure process and effectiveness, and to discover the pattern of influence among the groups. According to Putnam, government could not be treated as just another interest group since it controlled the formal political apparatus, and since it was a forum rather than a "singleminded" unit (pp. 40, 66-68).

It appeared to Putnam (1976) that interest groups had become "senior partners" in governmental policy determination, mainly by providing an information service on pending legislation. Such service was very valuable because the government elite had neither the time nor the knowledge "to analyze the range of legislation presented to them." A relatively "unresearched element" in the political process, according to Putnam was the extent to which increasing numbers of professional staff exercised decisive legislative influence. Putnam observed that many legislators and bureaucrats "cited these specialists as being central elements in the legislative process" (p. 10).

In a 1969 publication concerning a study of four states, Zeigler and Baer concluded that interest group systems were generally associated with short legislative sessions, frequent turnover, part-time job nature, and an













amateur status for state politics (p. 61). In a study of California Wyner (1973) concluded that "different kinds of interactions," including more interaction between lobbyists and staff personnel, were required since lobbyists by that time had to present much more detailed justifications of their proposals (p. 88).


The Legislative Staff--A Fourth House?

Zeigler and van Dalen (1976) found changes associated with full-time and adequately staffed legislatures. Because of a decline in influence of single or amalgamated group interests, lobbying techniques had changed and had become attuned to the "political dynamics of individual state legislatures" and to the "subtleties of legislator-lobbyist interchange" (p. 135).

Worman (1975) reviewed his 1970 survey of 31 senators and 32 representatives serving in the Florida Legislature, and their assistants, for a total of 126 individuals. He concluded from his responses that the "potential for abuse of power" by aides was definitely present, since there was not a great deal of contact between the legislator and the aide. Because there was a high rate of legislator approval of aide activity in representing the legislator's opinion in such areas as the constituency, the press, committees,













bill researching, and lobbyists, Worman concluded that there was a possibility of aides "initiating legislation peculiar to their interests" (pp. 87, 102, 104).

Some authors have wondered whether large and expert staffs provided a mixed blessing. For example, Heaphey (1975) stated that there was a need to learn more about "what must be double-edged swords of staff contributions" (p. 8). Along with an increased legislative research and policy capability, Patterson (1976) reported a growing state emphasis on "program and performance evaluation" (p. 146-148). From a study in Wisconsin Rosenthal (1973) saw increased staffing for the caucuses and the fiscal bureau leading to more centralization of legislative decision-making (p. 32). Meller (1952) saw staffs influencing policy outcome even when only assembling data, and observed that it was a myth that they were detached from policy formulation (p. 122). Some years later Meller (1967) concluded that indiscrimate staffing could lead to "each legislator becoming the captive of his own staff" (pp. 383-384). Arthur Macmahon (1943) foresaw a danger that the growth in staff could create a new bureaucracy which would insulate legislators from their constituents (p. 187). In California staffing patterns shifted froman initial emphasis on information specialists to a later













emphasis on political experts. Baaklini (1975) saw an inherent conflict between values of a legislative bureaucracy (elitist, secretive, hierarchical, career-oriented), and values of the legislature (open, representative, collegial) (p. 234).

In a PhD dissertation entitled "Professional Staffing in the New York State Legislature: An Exploratory Study" Balutis (1973) concluded that professional staffs were not merely neutral agents devoid of values and providing purely objective data. In a 1975 publication, Balutis cites data from his PhD dissertation which emphasized the influence of legislative staff. His study involved 148 interviews, 62 with professional staff members, 51 with legislators, 20 with members of the executive branch, 10 with lobbyists, and 5 with journalists (p. 111). The following table gives Balutis' findings regarding legislative staff influence.













Table 1

Views of Legislative Staff Influence


Proportion Viewing Legislative Staff as very not Group influential influential influential


Legislators (50) 44% 52% 4% Executive
Personnel (20) 55% 40% 5% Lobbyists (10) 20% 70% 10% Staffers (62) 27% 64% 8%



(Balutis, 1975, p. 127)

Balutis stated that the staffing of legislatures

introduced a third force of experts into the policy process to serve as "a corrective to the bias of the special interests and to the substantive recommendations of the executive" (p. 28). Balutis concluded also that increased staffing did not eliminate the dependency of legislators upon others for information, but only transferred it from the executive branch to legislative staff experts. The latter were seen to be important participants in the legislative process whose views had important implications for policy-making. In fact, the legislature may have created













its own counter bureaucracy which may "come to possess all the characteristics of the executive bureaucracy it was created to control" (p. 360).

In 1979 Press and VanBurg noted a dramatic increase in the size of permanent legislative staffs in the previous decade. They suggested that while it was not yet fashionable to speak of the "legislative bureaucracy," it soon would be, and that the appellation "Fourth House" now applied to congressional staff, soon would be applied to state legislative staffs (the "Third House" was seen to consist of the lobbyists) (p. 267). One reason given was the desire of legislative members for the independence to develop initiatives and alternatives. In a 1978 article dealing with developments in school finance reform, Fuhrman saw evidence that states were building "their own in-house capacities for the kind of analysis modern school financing requires." Educational interest groups had become fragmented, and legislatures had become full-time, modern, and efficient areas for policy setting and monitoring. A staffed, committed legislature, according to Fuhrman, was more likely to initiate its own educational policies, to question schoolmen, and to be concerned with the













appropriate implementation of policies (pp. 174-175). Most writers generally agreed that much more study is needed to determine what impact professional staffing has on state legislatures.



Discussion



An adequate theory for interest groups and political influence would have to include the roles of individuals, groups, and leaders on particular issues over different times. It would bridge the gap between the hierarchy associated with elitism and the group action noted in pluralism; and it would recognize the influence of the ideological needs and intellectual modes of the times.

This writer has combined components from three wellrecognized groups of theories to develop an integrated approach to the analysis of educational interest groups. The sociological theory discussed is group-centered, involves social pressures and social incentives, deals with reactions to disturbances in the environment, and yet is relatively stable. The exchange theory is leadercentered, involves moral principles, ideology, charisma, and tends to be unstable. The rational theory focuses on the rational, self-seeking individual, is concerned with













material incentives and is relatively stable. An integrated theory involving the group, the leader, and the individual member will be used in the remainder of this study to analyze educational interest groups and their potency for cohesion or fragmentation. The characteristics of the three theories to be used by the writer are shown in Table 2.



Table 2

Key Features of Three Theories



Item Sociological Exchange Rational Group/Individual Group Leader Individual Centered Centered Centered Incentives Social Ideology Material (and charisma)

Benefit Emphasis Collective Ideological Selective (political)

Stability Stable Unstable Stable



These three general theories correspond roughly to the typology, using solidary, purposive, and material incentives, developed by Clark and Wilson (1961) which has been discussed earlier.













By an integration of these three approaches in the analysis of educational interest groups, one set of stable relationships can be replaced by another after an unstable interval. This interval reflects an imbalance of relationships which unfreezes the system and exists until the relationships are brought into a new equilibrium (Benne and Birnbaum, 1969, p. 329).

State educational lobby groups, even when termed monolithic, consist of constituent parts, any one of which may provide stimulus to fragmentation. As has been noted, such coalitions are subject to fragmentary pressures from the environment or from constituent organizational change. These lobbies generally are organizations of leaders from groups and depend upon these leaders being in tune with and able to lead the constituent groups (Wilson, 1973, p. 278). If forces happen to cause a shift in the values of the membership in a constituent organization, and if new leadership (especially charismatic leadership) with new values emerges then there will be potential fragmentation of a unified lobby. This is especially true, of course, if the unified lobby is unable to assimilate the change in values in its working relationships. Such lobbies generally are composed of individuals with similar characteristics and values, and if these













leaders lose their ability to lead their organizations, new leadership may emerge which is not in tune with the approach of the unified lobby. The concept of environmental disturbances may affect a lobby indirectly through the impact of these disturbances on a constituent organization.

The glue which holds the leadership of a unified

lobby together is their homogeneity, the knowledge that their contributions (in such a small group) count, and a belief in and affective ties to the worthwhileness of their efforts. These leaders are not impelled by economic selective incentives for themselves, nor are they coerced into belonging.

The general membership of constituent organizations is not much involved in the unified lobby. If all goes well and benefits are provided, then the constituent organizations are less likely to jar the relationship at the lobby level and there is, of course, little likelihood that the leaders in the lobby, having a homogeneous background and ideological stance, would stimulate any fragmentation of the lobby. If a large organization, however, is not only jarred by "disturbances in the environment" which tend to produce alienation, but by the emotional and charismatic appeal of a new leader with













a new vision of an organization's goals, then there is potential for a period of disorientation and instability. During this transient period the organization will change, and eventually a new stability will be obtained.

This writer suggests that collective benefits of

the sociological theory, supplemented by the value benefits of the exchange theory, and the selective economic benefits of the rational theory, provide a fuller and more dynamic explanation of organizational cohesion or fragmentation than any one of these theories. This approach suggests also a wave of action from one type of organizational stability to another. Conflict and fragmentation are parts of this movement, as organizations reform in response to disturbances, pressures, and incentives involving the group, the leaders, and the individual members. Olson's theory is an important addition to the understanding of pressure groups, but, of course, group members are not only rational in terms of material incentives but have thoughts, feelings, and emotions which impel them to act from both an ideological and a sociological viewpoint. According to this integrated approach, any new arrangement in an educational interest group will reflect not only characteristics of the sociological theory and exchange














theory but of the rational/economic theory as well, so that sociological, ideological, and rational incentives are all considered.

Legislatures, as a result of a fragmented lobby

disturbance, are expected to be much more than passive referees in the power struggle that results. Aroused and militant teachers are expected to become more aggressive and influential, and the legislature also is expected to be aroused in response to the disturbances and be directly involved in initiating legislation and in overcoming open threats to its power. In a sense this was forecast by Truman's idea of disturbances producing a "wave" of organizational change as action produces reaction. The conflict associated with the exchange approach is not just a means of change but a mechanism for producing a new equilibrium and stability. The legislature is not an interest group in the same sense as is the FEA, and the sociological, rather than the rational, emphasis is used to explain its reaction to fragmentation of the education lobby. Initiation of legislative policy, and a locus of accommodation for the differing interests shifted toward the legislature following fragmentation of the unified lobby.













Summary



Literature from political science and organizational fields has been reviewed in an attempt to develop proposi-tions about state educational interest groups. A typology was developed from three theories concerning interest groups.

The sociological theory was group-centered, involved social incentives and collective benefits, and explained formation of organizations as reactions to environmental disturbances. The exchange theory discussed was leadercentered, involved ideological incentives and benefits, and explained formation of organizations as an exchange between a charismatic leader and potential members, to whom the leader offers benefits. The rational theory discussed centered around the self-interested individual, explained membership in an organization in terms of selfinterest (the individual gets out of the organization at least as much as the cost of belonging), and involved selective economic benefits from, and/or coercion by, the organization. It was suggested by the writer that there was movement from the sociological, through the exchange, to the rational mode of organization--the exchange mode being an unstable one.













The review of literature revealed a growing dominance of the legislature in state educational policy-making, and a growth in influence of legislative staffs. These events followed fragmentation of educational coalitions and the emergence of more militant teachers' organizations. The longer term, larger staffed legislatures became initiators of educational legislation. The influence of the legislative staffs began to be seen in the past decade as very influential. Concern was noted that legislative staffs could prove a mixed blessing to legislatures. They might accumulate such a great amount of influence over the direction of policy-making that legislatures might become the captives of their own staffs.



Propositions


From a review of the literature, including both

situational and theoretical studies, the writer formulated eight propositions about the fragmentation of unified state educational lobbies. The function of these propositions is to serve as a focus for the examination of the fragmentation of the Florida educational lobby. Fragmentation of state unified educational lobbies has been noted in the literature to have a close association with the activity




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE EFFECTS OF FRAGMENTATION OF THE FLORIDA EDUCATIONAL LOBBY By NORMAN H. FERGUSSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1982

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer acknowledges the valuable assistance provided by his Dissertation Committee in the preparation of this study. Special thanks are expressed by the writer to Dr. Ralph Kimbrough, Chairman of the Committee, for his willing counsel, support and encouragement; to Dr. Robert Sherman for valuable criticism and aid; and to Dr. James Longstreth for his interest in the effort. Thanks are expressed also to Dr. Michael Nunnery v/ho provided assistance in the proposal stage. The writer gratefully acknowledges the information provided by those who participated in interviews. Despite busy schedules they gave up time to assist the writer in his effort. Acknowledgements would not be complete without reference to the writer's wife, Isabel, who not only typed and proofread this dissertation, but provided encouragement to get it completed.

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT V CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 Background of the Study 1 Statement of the Purpose 7 Delimitations and Limitations 7 Justification for the Study 8 Definition of Terms 9 Procedures 12 Organization of the Study 19 TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE CONCERNING STATE EDUCATIONAL INTEREST GROUPS 21 Study of Eight Northeastern States. . . 22 Study of Three Midwestern States. ... 27 Four Types of State Lobbying Structures 36 Study of Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz. . . 40 Educational Coalitions 44 Educational Governance Project 46 General Analysis of State Studies ... 51 Summary 55 THREE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE CONCERNING INTEREST GROUPS 57 Introduction 57 Unified Lobbies or Coalitions 58 Typologies of Organization 59 Three Theories to Analyze Interest Groups 61 The Legislature as an Initiator .... 78 iii

PAGE 4

The Legislative Staff — A Fourth House? 81 Discussion 86 Summary 92 Propositions 93 FOUR RESULTS OF TPIE FLORIDA FIELD STUDY 96 Preview 96 Changes in Educational Lobbies 97 A United or Divided Lobby 104 Effectiveness of the Pre-1968 Versus the Post-1968 Lobby 105 Rankings of Influence 107 Advantages or Disadvantages of a Unified Lobby Ill Originators of Educational Legislation Change 113 Political "Know-How" 116 Loss or Gain of Influence. , 119 Change in Commitment to Education. . . . 124 Groups Presenting Useful Information . . 125 A More Effective Educational Lobby . . . 128 Summary 130 FIVE INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION 134 Propositions and Findings 134 SIX SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 160 Summary 160 Implications 169 Suggestions for Future Research 175 APPENDICES A LISTING OF INTERVIEWEES 179 B INTERVIEW GUIDE 182 REFERENCES 184 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 192 iv

PAGE 5

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE EFFECTS OF FRAGMENTATION OF THE FLORIDA EDUCATIONAL LOBBY By Norman H. Fergusson May 1982 Chairman: Ralph B. Kimbrough Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision State educational lobby structures and their influences are part of an important and relatively new area of study. The purpose of this dissertation was to derive from the literature a set of propositions relating to the causes and effects of fragmentation of state educational lobbies; to study the fragmentation of the state educational lobby in Florida by means of a field study and a review of related documents and literature; and to examine the extent to v/hich the effects of this fragmentation were consistent with the derived set of propositions. A review of literature about state educational lobbies revealed a lack of developed theory to explain V

PAGE 6

the causes and effects of fragmentation of educational lobbies. Literature from political science and organizational fields also was reviewed. A typology was fashioned from components of three theories about interest groups (sociological, exchange, and rational) and used as a conceptual framework for the study. Eight propositions were developed about the effects of fragmentation of state educational lobbies. Significant findings were as follows: (a) the fragmented educational lobby in Florida was perceived to be much more effective than the old united lobby; (b) there was an increased role by the legislature in educational policy-making; (c) legislative staffs were perceived to be powerful influences in educational policy-making; (d) teachers' organizations were seen to increase in influence; (e) fragmentation was initiated by disturbances which affected the stability of the state teachers' organization; (f) the state teachers' organization was seen to have passed through an unstable exchange phase involving conflict, charismatic leadership, and a change of ideology, toward a rational (economic) phase of organization; (g) superintendents and the DOE were seen to have lost influence; (h) there was general agreement that the educational lobby would increase its effectiveness by becoming unified; (i) a growing unity on particular issues was observed. Data were not vi

PAGE 7

conclusive about the extent to which the stability of the teachers' organizations was affected by the ability to offer selective economic benefits to their membership. The writer developed a conceptual framework for this study from political science theory, and suggests that this approach would be useful in further studies. vii

PAGE 8

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background of the Study Politics has been defined by lannaccone (1967) as that segment of social life involving the activities and relationships of individuals, groups, and associations resulting in, or intended to result in, decisions by any governmental, policy-making body. (p. 4) The old myth that education and politics do not mix has been shown to be misleading and inaccurate. Easton (1957) observed that while the primary orientation of educational institutions was not toward politics, it was important to explore the directions through which education leaves its impact upon political life and is, in turn, affected by it (p. 309) . And as Campbell, Cunningham, and McPhee (1965) stated, "Educational policy-making at all governmental levels is immersed in politics and by definition educational policy-making is political action" (p. 404) . Harden (1965) after reviewing studies of 1964 noted "the total immersion of the state politics of the public schools within the total political processes of state

PAGE 9

2 government" (p. 54). Stinnett and Cleveland (1976) stated that Teachers must shed the persisting naivete about politics and engage vigorously in its processes. No instrument of government is more involved in politics than public schools. (p. 87) State educational lobby groups have been involved in political activity for a long time. A unified approach to the legislature was preceded by the achievement of consensus by the different organizations within the unified educational lobby. When the constituent organizations were no longer able to present a unified front to the legislature fragmentation of the lobby resulted. According to Burlingame and Geske (1979) it has been only in the past 15 years that fragmentation of state educational lobbies began to be associated with distinct and dramatic changes in state politics (p . 50 ) . A typology for describing the structure of state educational lobbies was developed by lannaccone (1967) . After examining two studies involving 11 states he noted four types of organizational patterns for linking educational interest groups and state legislators. Type I. A locally-based disparate structure characterized by strong localism in legislature contacts, and likely to fall apart after each effort with the legislature;

PAGE 10

3 Type II. A state-wide monolithic structure which possessed a high degree of consensus among school interest groups and their allies (a coalition) ; Type III. A state-wide fragmented structure wherein interest groups came to the legislature disunited, often in conflict rather than consensus; and Type IV. A state-wide syndical structure which had a formal government link between legislators and school interest groups (pp. 47-50) . lannaccone found more cases of state-wide monolithic structures (Type II) than any other in the states he studied, but suggested that there was a process of dynamic change through the four types of structures (pp. 70-74). Some years later, an Educational Governance Project, using 1972-73 data, studied educational interest groups in 12 states. Aufderheide (1976), a participant in the Educational Governance Project (EGP) , perceived a fragmentation of educational interest groups as the prevailing structure. The 12 states, when summarized according to lannaccone 's typology, were arranged as follows:

PAGE 11

4 Locally based disparate State-wide monolithic State-wide fragmented Tennessee Texas California Massachusetts Florida Georgia Michigan Minnesota Nebraska New York Wisconsin Florida Georgia Colorado Colorado (p. 201) The data in the above table show that fragmentation was evident in the more industrialized states, and that monolithic structures prevailed in Tennessee and Texas (in these two states the teachers' organizations were unified). Florida was unique in that while it was largely state-wide fragmented, some elements of a locally-based disparate model also existed (since the teachers' organization was in disarray) (Aufderheide, 1976, pp. 200-201). the above studies, suggested that lannaccone was correct in predicting the shift which was subsequently noted from the state monolithic structure (Type II) to a state-wide fragmented structure (Type III) . Nystrand did not, however, note any movement from the Type III to Type IV structure (p. 261) . An example of the fragmentation of an educational lobby occurred in Florida in the late 1960 's and early 1970 's. Nystrand (1976) , in analyzing the findings from

PAGE 12

5 In the early 1960 's the Florida Education Association (FEA) was the focal point for educational interest group leaders to formulate common positions on educational legislation. The FEA, which included both administrators and teachers in its membership, had close ties with the superintendents' associations, the Florida Department of Education (DOE) , the Florida School Boards' Association, and some university personnel. The legislature depended upon the Florida DOE and the FEA for legislative proposals. The united educational lobby directly interacted then with legislative leaders, particularly concerning legislation dealing with the public schools (DePalma, 1973, pp. 16-18). The growing teacher frustration and militancy in the 1960 's in Florida finally resulted in the 1968 teachers' "walkout" or strike — probably the most newsworthy event in the fragmentation of the unified educational lobby. The events leading up to the strike and its aftermath caused much turmoil throughout the state (Teverbaugh, 1968, p. 6). During and following the strike, the relationships between the FEA, superintendents, school board groups, and the Florida Department of Education changed. Harmony between the FEA and these other groups was replaced by bitterness. Administrators left or were excluded from the FEA, and close ties with the other groups were lost. The teaching profession itself became fragmented into several groups and the

PAGE 13

6 unified state educational lobby collapsed. As DePalma conunented: "The 'old order' monolithic structure which linked educational interest groups to the legislature had been fragmented" (DePalma, 1973, pp. 18, 21). Kimbrough, Wattenbarger , and Alexander (1981) also noted that The failure of the teachers' strike served to fragment educational groups, a process that had been building for several years before 1968. In the breakup of the old order, power over education was "up for grabs." (pp. 432-433) While several writers, in addition to DePalma, have commented upon the events leading up to the fragmentation of the educational lobby in Florida, a library search has failed to produce a dissertation or any other study dealing with the effects of the fragmentation. In reviewing research in education, Griffiths (1979) noted that many functions of educational organizations could not be explained by present theory, and that none of the present theories acknowledged the existence of teachers' unions (p. 264). Since teachers' organizations were one of the major components of educational lobbies it would be difficult to develop comprehensive theory about the fragmentation of educational lobbies without consideration of the role played by teachers' organizations (Usdan, 1969, p. 33) .

PAGE 14

7 1 Statement of the Purpose The purpose of this study was, first, to derive from the literature a set of propositions relating to the causes and effects of fragmentation of state educational lobbies; second, to study the fragmentation of the state educational lobby in Florida by means of a field study and a review of related documents and literature; and, third, to examine the extent to which the effects of the fragmentation of the educational lobby in Florida were consistent with the derived set of propositions. Delimitations and Limitations 1. The literature reviewed to derive propositions was limited to studies about state educational lobbies and educational influence in politics, as well as political science and organizational theory related to fragmentation of interest groups. 2. The field study concerning the fragmentation of a state educational lobby was limited to Florida. 3. The field study involved interviews with 45 non-randomly selected knowledgeable persons. Any attempt, therefore, at generalization will have to be carefully considered.

PAGE 15

8 Justification for the Study The fragmentation of state educational lobbies has been observed by scholars in the past decade. The study of these lobbies is a relatively new area, however, and a review of literature, including dissertations, revealed a lack of developed theory to explain the causes and consequences of fragmentation of these lobbies. Educational lobbies are involved in competition for resources with other groups at the state level. As has been previously noted, educational policy-making is immersed in politics. An understanding of the effects of fragmentation on the political influence of educational lobby groups is especially important in a time of competition for scarce resources. Educational leaders and scholars would be well served by a contribution to the development of theory about political fragmentation of these groups. One significant example of the fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby occurred in Florida in 1968 following a state-wide teachers' strike. Because of the above factors, this case study of Florida was undertaken.

PAGE 16

9 Definition of Terms Chief State School Officer (CSSO) A position established by law in every state; sometimes called superintendent of public instruction or commissioner of education. In most states the CSSO is the executive officer of the state board of education, head of the department of education, and chief administrative officer for executing state educational laws and regulations. In a majority of states the CSSO is appointed by the state board but in a considerable number the CSSO is elected, as in Florida, and in a few he is appointed by the governor. In Florida the Cabinet is the State Board of Education and the CSSO is a member of Cabinet (Campbell & Mazzoni, 1976, pp. 81-82) . Collective Benefits . Benefits which accrue to people in a particular situation or category, regardless of their organizational affiliation (Salisbury, 1969, p. 21) . Conflict . "A breakdown in the standard mechanisms of decision-making so that an individual or group experiences difficulty in selecting an action alternative" (March & Simon, 1958, p. 123). Disturbance . A change or disequilibriumism in established patterns of interaction and expectations (Truman, 1971, pp. 29, 511); some force that changes the "equilibrium" of a group with other elements in society (Berry, 1978, p. 380) .

PAGE 17

10 Economic Incentives . Tangible benefits an individual receives such as salaries, insurance plans, protective services, which give potential members of an organization incentives to join. Elitism . This term refers to a system in which disproportionate power rests in the hands of a relatively small group or community (Presthus, 1964, p. 10). Florida Education Association (FEA) . An organization formerly affiliated with the National Education Association, and formerly including administrators as well as teachers as members. The FEA is now affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers and does not include administrators in its membership. Florida teachers' strike . The 1968 strike, or walkout, or mass resignation of teachers in Florida. There may be some argument as to what term is the proper or most accurate, but in this study the most common reference to the event noted is "strike." Florida Teaching Profession (FTP) . When the Florida Education Association became affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, the group of teachers who continued affiliation with the National Education Association became known as the FTP.

PAGE 18

11 Fragmentation . In this study fragmentation refers to the breakup of the unified state educational lobby (composed of different interest groups) , and the breakup of the Florida Education Association as it existed in 1968. Interest group . A group in which the shared interests of members include attempts to influence decisions made within the public policy-making systems {sometimes called a pressure group, lobby, or voluntary association) (Greenwald, 1977, p. 13). Pluralism . A system in v;hich political power is fragmented and shared between the state and a multitude of private groups and individuals (Presthus, 1964, p. 10) . Purposive incentives . Ideological and political satisfactions an individual would receive by joining an organization (Berry, 1978, p. 383) . Selective benefits . Benefits which accrue only to members of an association or group (Salisbury, 1969, p. 21) . Solidary incentives . Socializing and friendship benefits which attract individuals to an organization. Unified state educational lobby . A coalition at the state level of organizations for the purpose of lobbying the legislators on educational matters (Auf derheide , 1976, p. 197) .

PAGE 19

12 Procedures The procedures in this study consisted of two parts: first, a review of studies concerning fragmentation of educational lobbies to derive a set of propositions for the study; and, second, the conduct of a case study of the consequences of fragmentation of the Florida educational lobby to determine the extent to which derived propositions are applicable to Florida. Development of the Theory In order to provide a conceptual foundation for the study, literature specific to the fragmentation of state educational lobbies, and literature particularly from the field of political science theory which pertains to the fragmentation of such groups, was examined. This resulted in a set of propositions dealing with fragmentation of educational lobbies. This study was undertaken to learn more about the consequences of fragmentation of state educational lobbies. Of particular interest were predictions about the changes in influence relationships as a result of fragmentation. A number of expert views about theory and method are presented in the following paragraphs.

PAGE 20

13 Knezevich (1969) defined theory as follows: A theory (model) is a cluster of interlocking and interactive concepts systematized into an abstracted intellectual pattern capable of interpreting generalizable trends and inter-relationships that prevail within a set of varied facts within reality (or a part of it). (pp. 510-511) Kerlinger (1973) defined theory as A set of interrelated constructs (concepts) , definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena. (p. 9) According to Landau (1972) conceptualization is a broad and ambiguous term which breaks down into two distinct sets: categories (or concepts, classes, predicates); and expectations (or propositions, statements, hypotheses) (p. 48). The ability to compare the results of the survey with some outside criterion provided, to some extent, a means to test the validity of survey responses (Kerlinger, 1973, p. 418) . An examination of historical data may be used as a criterion to check the results of data obtained from a survey involving perceptions of events over time. According to the sociologist Mills (1959), any systematic attempt to understand involves an alternation between empirical intake and theoretical assimilation. While concepts ought to guide investigation, investigation

PAGE 21

14 ought to check upon and reshape concepts (p. 74) . Greenfield (1975) suggested that research should turn to the case study and comparative and historical methods "which represent perceived reality more faithfully and fully than do the present highly quantified and abstruse techniques" (pp. 77) . Welsh (1979) observed that elite interviewing was a sensitive mode of data gathering, that such research had the advantage of directness, of being able to pursue interesting issues, and of being organized around topics in which the researcher is interested. Welsh suggested also that a more-than-one-method approach to understanding political influence would help overcome difficulties of validity and reliability (pp. 55-56) . The Florida Field Stud y A central part of the Florida study was a field study which v;as verified with related historical references The field study involved 45 in-depth interviews through which information about the consequences of such fragmentation was obtained. Selection of persons interviewed . A list of knowledgeable persons was first selected in consultation with the writer's advisors. Names were added as the

PAGE 22

15 Interviews were carried out. The criteria for selection included (a) public positon held in relation to educational lobbying (i.e., teachers' unions, legislators, state bureaucracy), and (b) person's known participation in educational lobbying activities in Florida. The persons interviewed included key persons involved in education in the late 1960 's and early 1970 's when fragmentation of the educational lobby took place; and some present day educational leaders and legislators — including teachers' organization leaders, school board association leaders, and civil servants. A list of those interviewed is noted in Appendix A. Interview guide . An initial list of interview questions was tested on three persons, and then reviewed with the chairman of the writer's doctoral committee. The result was a list of 11 items relating to perceptions about changes and the consequences of changes among the different groups involved in the old Florida educational lobby. According to Kerlinger (1973) the personal interview is the "most powerful and useful tool" of social scientific survey research. Not only may factual information, opinions, and attitudes be obtained, but the interviewer may explore the reasons for such opinions and attitudes (p. 412).

PAGE 23

16 Generally the interview instrument included both open-ended and structured questions rather than totally free or totally structured items. Closed questions yield information to classify the respondent with respect to a particular perception; open-ended questions are helpful in learning something about the respondent's frame of reference and intensity of feeling (Kahn & Cannell, 1958, p. 135). The interview guide is shown in Appendix B. Collection of the Data Data sources consisted of three main areas: (a) the review of literature related to fragmentation of educational lobbies, and literature concerning interest groups; (b) an examination of the literature and documents relating to the consequences of fragmentation of educational lobbies in Florida; and (c) the collection of data, through in-depth interviews, concerning the consequences of the fragmentation of the educational lobby in Florida. The interviews were arranged first through introductory letters from the chairman of the writer ' s doctoral committee An introductory letter from a well-known writer in the field of politics and education was no doubt very helpful in the initiation of interviews. Dexter (1970) has noted

PAGE 24

17 the importance of "introductions from trusted sources" for setting up interviews (p. 30) . Follow-up telephone calls were made by the writer to arrange interviews. Often several calls were necessary in order to contact and arrange a suitable time for interviews. Several automobile trips were then necessary to carry out personal interviews. Personal interviews were carried out with about one-half of those respondents interviewed. Because of difficulties involving time and geographical factors for interviews, it was then decided to use telephone interviews with the remainder of the respondents. As mentioned above, letters from the writer's advisor preceded arrangement of interviews. Some of the respondents indicated that it was more convenient for them to use the telephone for interviews than arrange for personal interviews . The length of time for the interviews generally was in the one-half hour to the one and one-quarter hour range. Telephone interviews usually were somewhat shorter than personal interviews. In most cases respondents were very cooperative. Two telephone respondents were in a hurry and not fully cooperative. The writer, however, does not believe a personal interview could have been arranged

PAGE 25

18 in these cases. In general the telephone interviewees seemed to be as open as those personally interviewed. Most respondents did not appear to be cautious or tentative in their comments. When the anonymity feature of the interview was stated by the interviewer, many respondents indicated that their opinions were ones they would be willing to state openly. The cooperation by telephone, however, was probably aided significantly by the letters of introduction. In addition to introductory letters, the interviewer often had to call more than once to locate the respondent. This factor would also help in making the interviewee conversant with the reason for the call. Notes of the conversations were taken by the writer after obtaining permission from the interviewees. Fox (1969) stated that interview success depends upon the ability to establish rapport with the respondent so that "honest and complete responses" occur without a bias or influence caused by the interviewer or by the manner of questioning (p. 544) . It appeared to the interviewer that the responses whether by personal or telephone interview, were honest and complete.

PAGE 26

19 Data Treatment Data gathered from interviews generally consisted of opinions of respondents; however, events mentioned by any respondent could be cross-checked, not only with other responses, but also with the interviewer's knowledge of events obtained from readings. The writer had read many newspaper accounts which were written just before, during, and immediately after the Florida state-wide teacher strike of 1968. In addition, the writer had copies available of a variety of papers and articles, as well as one book about the strike and its aftermath. At least two reports helped the writer obtain knowledge of the shifts in influence following the fragmentation of the lobby. These reports, Depalma's in 1973 prepared for the Educational Governance Project, and a Consultant's Report in 1978 prepared for a committee of the Florida Legislature, provided time interval checks on the state of influence of some lobby groups. Organization of the Study The study is reported in six chapters. Chapter One contains the introduction and includes the background of the study, statement of the problem, delimitations and limitations, justification for the study, definition of

PAGE 27

20 terms, procedures, and organization of the report. Chapter Two contains a review of literature relating to state educational lobbies and fragmentation. Chapter Three contains a review of literature about interest groups and the development of assumptions about the fragmentation of interest groups. Chapter Four is a presentation of the results of data from the Florida field study. Chapter Five contains an interpretation and discussion of data. A summary of the study, implications, and suggestions for future research are provided in Chapter Six.

PAGE 28

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE CONCERNING STATE EDUCATIONAL INTEREST GROUPS Is group consensus necessary for the political effectiveness of educational interest groups? A very important concern in this dissertation is whether the fragmentation of educational interest groups seriously impairs their effectiveness in the political arena. To obtain more knowledge on this issue, the writer reviewed the literature about state educational interest groups or lobbies. The results of this review are presented in this chapter. Major studies and analyses reviewed include the study of Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont by Bailey, Frost, Marsh, and Wood (1962); the study of Missouri, Illinois, and Michigan by Masters, Salisbury, and Eliot (1964); lannaccone ' s (1967) post factum analysis of studies; the study involving California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas by Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz (1969); and the Educational Governance Project involving California, Colorado, Florida, 21

PAGE 29

22 Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin by Campbell, Mazzoni, and others (1976) . Study of Eight Northeastern States The politics of state school aid in eight northeastern states was analyzed by Bailey, Frost, Marsh, and Wood (1962) . The states studied were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and New Jersey. The authors built their study around the simple proposition that finance for schools is determined politically. The study placed heavy reliance upon interviews — generally unstructured and open-ended. About 500 persons were interviewed including legislators, professional schoolmen, executive and administrative personnel in state governments, and a miscellany of citizens, journalists and academicians. The authors also examined a great many documents from both private and government sources (pp. vii-xiv) . Groups generally aligned in efforts to increase state school aid included governors, legislators, party leaders, teachers and lay supporters, particular business interests, and academicians (such as Paul Mort) who were termed "scribblers." A coalition could be an on-going organization, as in New York; a strategic device of

PAGE 30

23 the state department of education, as in Rhode Island and possibly New Hampshire; or an ad hoc one-time affair as in Massachusetts. The drive to coalesce resulted in the New York State Educational Conference Board, the New Hampshire Joint Committee on Needs of Education, the New Jersey "Princeton Group," the Massachusetts Association for Adequate State Financing for Public Schools (in the late 1940 's), the Connecticut Legislative Coordinating Committee, the Maine Advisory Board, and the Rhode Island Liaison Committee . The most impressive example of these coalitions was the New York Educational Conference Board which consisted of the state teachers' association, the state school boards' association, the state congress of parents and teachers, the public education association of New York City, the state citizens' committee for the public schools, the state association of district school superintendents, the state association of secondary school principals, and the state association of elementary school principals. This Conference Board was organized first by the secretaries of the state teachers' association and the state school boards' association who were concerned with the betterment of education through political influence; and the secretariats of these two organizations, along with the state department of education

PAGE 31

24 and Paul Mort of Columbia University Teachers' College continued as the tactical core of the coalition. The authors note, however, that this coalition was a sounding board for an inner core of seven schoolmen. Perhaps the most important of these schoolmen was Paul Mort, whose writings on education finance had great influence in the northeast and elsewhere, and whose personal charisma and political sense made him very influential. The authors generally found that governors were influential and that key legislators were powerful and important. In most of the states studied, partisan politics, together with a constitutional system of representation, gave inordinate power to rural, small-town suburban, and overwhelmingly Republican forces. State boards of education were not seen to be strong in political influence; rather, they generally acted as sounding boards for ideas. More important roles were played by the Commissioner of Education, the Department of Education, and special study committees set up by legislators. While the classic use of the special committee appeared to be a conservative countervailing force to schoolmen, such committees in their work usually moved toward a somewhat more liberal stance (Bailey et al., 1962, pp. 25-39).

PAGE 32

25 While a coalition could be powerful, opposition forces or "depressants" also could be formidable. These forces included tax-mmded business groups, conservative philosophies, rural location, and splintered schoolmen. Tax-minded business groups, while sometimes supporting schoolmen, were seen to have a general inclination, at every level of government, to oppose taxes which they saw as discriminatory. Even when new state taxes were seen as necessary a struggle ensued over the form of taxation — a sales tax or an income tax. The most pervasive depressant on state school subsidies, however, v/as found to be rural localism, since rural representatives were generally overrepresented in the state legislatures studied. These interests opposed any growth in power of the state government. Conservative tax-minded legislators supported frugality and localism in government. On occasion, powerful tax-minded governors of these states acted as depressants on state school aid. With this emphasis on frugality there was only a gradual improvement in state aid to education; not the sharp increases which the schoolmen wished (Bailey et al., 1962, pp. 45-47, 56) . In addition to the depressants noted above, the most common handicap discerned in the study was the inability of schoolmen to work and speak as one. Disorder and

PAGE 33

26 / naivete appeared to be the schoolmen's outstanding political characteristics. Not only did official agencies rarely act in unison, but professional and private groups also were often split. Teachers were split into associations or unions; there were organizations also of principals, superintendents, guidance counsellors, vocational education, physical education, and classroom teachers. Similarly, other groups, such as parent-teachers, university women, league of women, and mental health organizations had their own special concerns or pet projects. Such a large number of special interests made it easy for lawmakers to play one group off against another or to ignore them (Bailey et al., 1962, pp. 51-53) . Bailey et al. (1962) concluded that while lawmakers acted favorably in those cases when interest groups agreed, there was an obvious lack of political sophistication among school interest groups. In the authors' opinion, cohesion, rather than fragmentation, would result in much greater success for educational interest groups in the legislative arena. The authors observed that schoolmen in most of the states recognized the value of unity and were striving for some form of collaborative endeavor. They stated in this regard that "The need is obvious and the trend toward cooperative action unmistakable" (p. 36) .

PAGE 34

27 Study of T hree Mid-Western States In St ate Poli tics and the Public Schools , Masters, Salisbury, and Eliot (1964) analyzed the involvement of three state governments in education. Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri were selected principally because the researchers had access to influential political and educational leaders in these states. The basic research strategy of the study was to "look first at the groups, individuals, and governmental agencies that have a direct and tangible stake in the outcome of education decisions or have the formal responsibility for them" (p. 7) . This effort was expected to lead the researchers to the sources of power and to political processes. The authors were concerned with (a) possible generalized statements about hov; influentials in education politics made decisions; (b) whether policy decisions were in response to public pressure as opposed to organized interest groups; (c) whether power was in the hands of an identifiable power structure, or a fragmented power; (d) whether a distinctive political style significantly affected decisions; (e) to what extent policies were shaped by larger state political factors; and (f) factors which produced consensus or which generated controversy (p. 9). Concerning methodology, the authors noted that limitations of time and resources made it necessary "to

PAGE 35

28 sacrifice precison of technique in favor of less rigorous methods" (Masters et al., 1964, p. 10). Written documents such as constitutions and school codes of the three states were first examined. Interviews held with recognized political leaders and informed people were structured "in order to allow respondents to give as comprehensive a view as possible" (Masters et al., 1964, Appendix V). The authors' choice of supporting observation and interviev7 data was a free one and followed no set standard of techniques and methods. A large part of their working material concerned the images and perceptions of those interviewed. Because of these conditions the authors admitted that their study yielded no "scientifically predictive generalizations" and avoided "normative judgments" (Masters et al., 1964, p. 10). Also used were existing studies of political systems in the three states, as well as publications from the United States Office of Education and the National Education Association. Po litics of Education in Missouri Missouri was characterized by Masters et al . (1964) as a state with low-pressure politics. Schoolmen were organ ized in one major group, the Missouri State Teachers' Associ ation (MSTA) which defined the school needs and presented them to the legislature. The MSTA, however, was careful to

PAGE 36

29 adjust its proposals to the state's political traditions. In other words, the MSTA got what it wanted from the legislature provided it did not ask for too much. Administrators belonged to the MSTA and school board officials generally supported the MSTA proposals. MSTA opinions were generally regarded as "expert" in the public school field. To keep its position and to prevent divisiveness in front of the legislature the MSTA took great care to avoid actions that would create division in the education lobby. For example, the xMSTA did not press for teacher tenure laws or minimum salary laws. The MSTA also avoided local issues and local quarrels (Masters et al., 1964, p. 20). As head of the unified education lobby presenting proposals based on "detached, objective study" and supported by the "professional experts" in the state, the MSTA became recognized as the voice for improving the public schools. The MSTA leaders sought legislative support by working quietly with the political system rather than against it. The approach was to get what was possible with a minimum of agitation or conflict, rather than try broader public campaigns for larger objectives. The researchers concluded that a change in this approach would require a change in leadership of the MSTA staff who were as "much a part of the culture as the legislature" they worked with so closely.

PAGE 37

30 The chief characteristic of MSTA activity v;as the "tactics of moderation of behalf of limited objectives" (Masters et al., 1964, pp. 20-26). Missouri was a low-tax, low-service state, but relatively free of anti-labor legislation as well as rightist fringe groups (Masters et al,, 1964, p. 37). Economic interest group alliance was apt to be ad hoc. No group sought to depart from existing conditions in any dramatic rapid way — in this sense, labor groups were as conservative as business groups. This emphasis, according to the researchers, "reinforces the norms of the system, minimizes conflict, and encourages group spokesmen to employ the legislative tactics of quiet persuasion without ideological ferment" (Masters et al., 1964, p. 39). On school issues major economic interests were at most of marginal importance. By adopting a strategy of accommodation, the MSTA "routinized" the decision-making process. While there was a seemingly durable power structure, elements of discontent were becoming evident. A teachers' union in St. Louis and growing demands for state services threatened to cause much more conflict than in the past (p. 98).

PAGE 38

31 Educational Politics in Illinois In many ways Illinois was similar to Missouri; both had foundation programs, and neither had an outstanding record in teacher welfare, although Illinois had at least a minimum salary for teachers and tenure laws. In both states the goals of professional educators were moderated to fit what the political system would comfortably allow. There was little controversy and parties did not divide on education questions; rather, there was a consensus pattern on school policy (Masters et al., 1964, p. 99). Consensus in Illinois was reached through the School Problems Commission (SPC) . The SPC was created by the legislature in 1957 as a continuing agency and was delegated broad authority to study school matters and to advise the legislature. The 17 member group was comprised of ten persons appointed by the legislature, five appointed by the governor, and two ex-officio — the superintendent of public instruction, and the state director of finance. It was supported by a research director and staff. The governor's appointments included such key persons as the research director of the Illinois Education Association, representatives from the State Association of School Beards, and the secretary of legislation for the Illinois Agriculture Association. The formula used was "progress without

PAGE 39

32 significant controversy." VVhile the SPC had but advisory power, virtually all its recommendations had been incorporated into law (Masters et al., 1964, pp. 100, 110, 124-125) . Before the SPC there was no single locus or agency responsible on a continuing basis for formulating a state school program. Dissension and disunity among the education groups blurred their impact and disrupted any plan for a coordinated program which would define and limit the state's role. Programs were set up in response to suggestions by education interest groups or from ad hoc commissions of the legislature. The organized groups concerned with public school policy channeled major policy demands through the SPC and then adjusted or modified their demands in accordance with SPC decisions. The highest priority of the SPC was with finance and reorganization of school districts; teachers' welfare was given only secondary consideration or left to others, and some policy matters were not touched at all. The high integration meant also that party interests had little or no influence. The SPC was an arena in which the various and sometimes conflicting aims of organized groups could be compromised or decided upon (Masters et al., 1964, pp. 101, 147, 174) .

PAGE 40

33 Michigan Politics of Education In Missouri and Illinois formulas were developed to achieve consensus , But in Michigan there was no regular pattern of decision-making. The outcome of school policy recommendations was less predictable. Education interest groups were fragmented. There was cleavage between the two parties — one represented in the governor's office, the other in the legislature. There was also a sharp division between proponents of the public schools and the parochial or private schools. In the decade preceding the study the legislature was hostile or indifferent to groups advocating change in public school policy. There was no dominant spokesman for public schools. The Michigan Education Association (MEA) at one time acted similarly to the MSTA in Missouri. At the time of the study MEA's major resource was information, and it rarely mobilized its membership on political decisions. Legislators frequently relied on MEA for information, although the senate was more hostile to MEA. The MEA did not threaten legislators with reprisals at polls (Masters et al . , 1964, pp. 180-186). In addition to the MEA, some of the education organizations involved in public school policy were the Michigan Association of School Administrators, the Michigan Association of County School Administrators, the Michigan

PAGE 41

34 Federation of Teachers, and the Michigan Association of School Boards. These groups were unsuccessful in minimizing conflict over their demands. In the 1950 's the state aid percentage declined. The legislature resisted proposals about adopting a foundation program, and there were no big strides in teacher welfare. Legislators disagreed about how taxes should be increased; Democrats were against a sales tax, and Republicans opposed income tax increases. Consensus did not work in Michigan and education interest groups were unable to exert much in the way of political pressure (Masters et al., 1964, pp. 207-214, 259, 260). Review of the Study of Three States Masters, Salisbury, and Eliot (1964) concluded that educators must face "political realities" and "compete for scarce resources." Two of the states had a clearly identifiable power structure, while in Michigan the structure was fragmented and unpredictable. Education interests were a part of the leadership both in Missouri and Illinois, but in Michigan the governor and legislative leaders were frequently at odds. In the structured framework of Missouri and Illinois governmental leaders set a framework of permissable negotiation for those who sought to influence public school policy.

PAGE 42

35 3 The authors found that public pressures or protests were significant only when the organized interest groups theraselves used them in raaking claims upon governmental agencies. In Michigan, however, a slight difference was evident in that public support often appeared as "the only alternative" to deadlock. Conflicts over public school issues were contained in the two states with a visible structure — but not in Michigan. Strong counter-pressures were activated on issues that called for basic changes in revenue structure, and on issues which called for substantially increased school expenditures. Such pressures involved concern for "fiscal responsibility" and "high taxes . " In the three states studied legislators frequently singled out education interests as the most powerful within the state. Educational interest groups, however, frequently were not as effective as they might be because of a lack of "political know-how. " Education interest groups tried to have governmental decisions on public schools made in a routine manner, and desired a predictable outcome even if it meant sacrificing policy alternatives. Representatives of interest groups often were forced to tailor their programs in order to achieve consensus.

PAGE 43

36 Political officials felt that efforts for education offered few of the "traditional prizes," therefore they avoided direct involvement — except for legislators who became expert in this policy area and who had interest groups among their principal bases of support. A vital aspect of achieving policy was to have several legislators become "recognized experts" about this policy, and willing to "carry the ball" in government (Masters et al., 1964, pp. 262-276) . Four Types of State Lobbying Structures In an analysis of state studies, lannaccone (1967) made what has been recognized as perhaps the most significant examination and conceptual statement about state interest groups. Through a post-f actum analysis, he developed a four-^type typology (mentioned in the preface of this study) to describe the linkage between educational interest groups and government. Such a study was timely because, as lannaccone stated, "public education at the local level continues to be increasingly dependent upon state monies for daily operation" (p. 37). lannaccone (1967) labelled the first type (Type I) of linkage structure as "locally based disparate." In this

PAGE 44

37 type schoolmen (a "squirearchy") represented their school districts in reaching accommodation with legislators. This model was seen to fit states having a rural character. Other characteristics noted were that the spokesmen were not classroom teachers but schoolmen (administrators, etc.), that accommodation of differing views took place inside the legislature, and that such groups were more effective in preventing legislation from being passed than in getting legislation passed. State-wide interest groups were of little consequence in states typical of Type I (p. 51) . The second category (Type II) was labelled a "statewide monolithic" structure and appeared to legislators to represent "the totality of the profession in their state." Accommodation of interests in this type of structure took place outside the legislature and inside the monolith. Decisions were compromises made within the monolith and presented to the legislature for ratification. However, even if the lobby could call the tune at times, it existed because of the legislature, not the other way around. Leaders of this type of lobby were masters of cooptation and consensus-building manipulation. Major components of this monolith usually included the NEA state affiliate, the school board association, one or more administrators'

PAGE 45

38 associations, and some volunteer citizens' groups such as the parent teacher association. The state department of education was also normally found within the monolith. Presiding over this group were school administrators and ex-school administrators, and "scribblers" or academicians (lannaccone, 1967, pp. 48-68). Type II structures not only had the capacity to prevent legislation from being passed, but had the capacity to initiate legislation. Educators generally were viewed positively in social service, but viewed lov/ in power. Type I was labelled a "squirearchy," but Type II was labelled an "oligarchy." lannaccone (1967) observed that this monolithic form fitted the politics "preferred by pedagogues," the "invisible" politics of an informal, closed system. While teachers were supposed to be represented in the pyramid of power they v;ere less than adequately represented, even among office holders in their own associations (pp. 62-66) The third type of structure (Type III) was designated "state-wide fragmented." In this type the distinctions among educators became very visible to legislators who were then forced to take sides. lannaccone (1967) argued that the existence of the monolithic structure was a necessary, even if not a sufficient, cause to produce a state-wide

PAGE 46

39 fragmented pattern. The teachers' organization split off from the unified lobby and strove to bargain directly with the legislature. Clearly teachers were no longer interested in being represented by a leadership cadre in tune with administrators . In this type of structure the locus of accommodation for the differing views moved to the legislature. This form of representation lannaccone (1967) referred to as a "polyarchy." Disputes over educational legislation were mediated or refereed by the legislature. Data, lannaccone noted, were inconclusive about whether or not Type III was more powerful than Type II in legislative action (pp. 43, 48, 53, 55, 72). The fourth type of structure (Type IV) was called a "state-wide syndical." The linkage structure was a formal government commission or unit wherein interest grouplegislator decision-making took place. This type of elite lannaccone (1967) termed a "synarchy" (pp. 43, 49-50). The condition which produced the syndical form was the deadlock caused by the competition and fragmentation of Type III. In this type, there is a reversion to the monopolistic structure noted in Type II, and the locus of accommodation is again reached outside the legislature, although in this coalition numerical strength is in the hands of legislators. This structure has broader coalitions than Type II. Because

PAGE 47

40 of this, more internal bargaining takes place and this to some extent limits gains in educational legislation. Stability is restored, however, after the unstable Type III phase (pp . 50 , 73) . lannaccone (1967) observed that political life displayed "alternating periods of relative homeostasis and abrupt change" (p. 38) . He saw elements of alternation in the four phases or types described. The first phase v/as competitive among local components; the second phase, monopolistic on a state-wide basis; the third phase, competitive on a state-wide organization basis; and the fourth phase was monopolistic, though government regulated. Each phase was not, however, just a simple alternation of competitive and monopolistic power, because elements of the old phase survived and were recombined in the new organizational structure of the new phase. For example, a leading scribbler of Type I, or a crippled monolith of Type II may still function in a Type III or Type IV structure (pp. 38, 79-80) . Study by Usdan, Minar , and Hurwitz Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz (1969) collected data from 12 states concerning the influences of the environment and political institutions on educational issues. These authors

PAGE 48

41 observed that the basis on which resources were allocated for education was "fragmented." Not only was education directed from three levels of government, but it was financed from a "grab-bag" of sources. Of particular concern to them was the line of division between public schools and higher education. They examined the present relationship between educational levels, and the ways in which this relationship affected political processes. The study of each state included sections on the organization of education, crucial issues in inter level relationships, and some conclusions about the future (pp. 1-3, 11) . From an analysis of issues in Florida, the authors commented that teacher militancy outbursts "have had significant implications" because the state aid formula was based on salaries developed cooperatively by the Department of Education and the Florida Education Association. Since legislative sessions were (at the time) , so short and infrequent, the legislature relied heavily on outside guidance. The FEA was considered to be "the most influential private group in determining education policy" (Usdan et al., 1969, p. 26) . Teacher militancy, however, was alienating many groups formerly allied with the FEA. While the university spokesmen did not feel that state support was adequate for

PAGE 49

42 their needs, public school spokesmen feared that junior colleges and universities were outpoliticing them in the legislature (pp. 26-31) . Usdan et al. (1969) reported that their research was drawn primarily from two sources — interviews, and published documents. Key informants were selected from each state, and they "usually" included education officials, executive agency officials, legislators, legislative staff members, leaders and staff of education-related groups, knowledgeable citizens, and newspaper people. In addition, supplementary evidence was used from a variety of reports, statistical documents, staff studies, and nev/spapers. The interviews were "undirected" in nature, and the list of questions used as a guide varied somewhat to fit the role of the interviewer. The authors observed that both the selection of the sample and the "design of the project limited its capacity to produce systematic generalization" (pp. 4-5). In integrating findings from the 12 states studied, the authors found a good deal of similarity, including important new shifts which were underway in most states. The high value placed on education had enhanced the power of the profession and brought it into close relationship with lay groups. Educational coalitions were formed, built around

PAGE 50

43 the teachers' associations, and these coalitions were critical elements in the politics of elementary and secondary education. Neither branch of government was found to be strong, coherent, or well-equipped. Governors often lacked adequate staff and effective tools for dealing with the legislature. Legislators generally were ill-organized, ill-staffed, and submerged by a flood of work. They, in effect, had to delegate initiatives to private interests and state agencies. This resulted in a piecemeal state policy which was slow to respond to changing social needs (pp. 167-178) . The authors of this study, however, saw evidence that the traditional form (coalition) of educational politics was breaking down, the most obvious cause for the breakdown being the rise of teacher militancy. With the alteration and perhaps decline of the "professional" establishment the role of the state structure had become unsettled. Legislatures that once looked for its cues on educational policy were losing their sources of certainty about what was educationally acceptable and politically feasible. The "cumbrousness" of the typical state structure for governing education explained in part the inability of these agencies to move strongly into leadership positions. The authors

PAGE 51

44 speculated that since the "familiar political defenses" of elementary and secondary education were down, the legislatures might take on greater responsibility for policy formulation (Usdan et al., 1969, pp. 168, 171-172). Educational Coalitions Michael Usdan, one of the authors of the previously discussed study, in 1969 published an article entitled "The Role and Future of State Educational Coalitions." He reported, from a 1966 report published by the National Council of State Education Associations, that coalitions or cooperation was a general feature of state interest groups. Of the 48 states surveyed, 27 had some kind of cooperating council or organization, and many other states developed cooperation through less formally structured coalitions or lobbies. Usdan (1969) stated, however, that developments in the late 1960 's made it difficult for coalitions to survive using their traditional strategies. Teacher militancy and aggressive organizational rivalry had increasingly estranged teacher groups from traditional organizational allies. This was most acute in the major industrialized states where organized labor was influential (pp. 27-31, 33-34). Some other factors noted by Usdan (1969) in the weakening of educational coalitions were (a) a pull toward

PAGE 52

45 localism because local associations were becoming the strong link in teachers' organizations, (b) different primary interests at the local versus the state level, (c) the fragmentation within the ranks of professional organizations (administrators no longer were a part of the teachers' associations), (d) the altering political complexion of many states as reapportionment gave suburban areas more seats, (e) the leadership style of many educational lobbies was attuned to the political style of rurally dominated legislatures, and (f) administrative agencies at all levels of government were becoming more influential (pp. 35-37) . Usdan (1969) predicted a dangerous power vacuum which educational lobbies must strive to fill if public education was not to suffer. Future effectiveness of educational lobbies would depend upon (a) a new lay leadership to offset the effects of fragmented teachers' associations, (b) more long-range planning by educational lobbies, (c) a closer relationship between schools and higher education, (d) full-time staff, and (e) greater financial support (pp. 38, 39) .

PAGE 53

46 Educational Governance Project The 1973 Educational Governance Project (EGP) was a twelve-state study primarily using structured interviews with different policy actors, including legislative leaders and state board members (Campbell & Mazzoni, 1976, p. 20). This two and one-half year study was funded by the United States Office of Education and was conducted at Ohio State University. According to Campbell and Mazzoni (1976) the purpose of the study was not to generate hypotheses but to search for significant data about how state public school policy was determined. The orientation of the study emphasized relationships among the actors within educational policy systems at each stage — issue definition, proposal formulation, support mobilization, and decision enactment. Education policy was presumed to be a competitive process and the explanation for policy decisions was based upon the patterns of accommodation among competing actors (pp. 4-8) . The 12 states studied were selected according to the way in which the state board and the chief state school officer were selected, since it was assumed that these variables would be central to the governance models that

PAGE 54

47 would eventually be developed. Other factors considered in the selection of states for the study were (a) the inclusion of states of large population, (b) states representing major regions of the country, (c) states with recent court interventions, (d) several pairs of comparable state situations (e.g. political, cultural, and socioeconomic development) , and (e) states had to have available background data (Campbell & Mazzoni, 1976, pp. 15, 16). After background data were collected on the 12 states, preliminary visits were made to confer with "informants." Then teams composed of two or three research associates spent three weeks in each of the states using two approaches — the issue area approach, and the policy systems (and reputational) approach. Since policy-making might not be the same for different issues, various kinds of decisions were investigated. Four major issues were to be considered in each state according to perceived importance as commented upon by several key actors in each state, and according to involvement of actors and governmental institutions in the issue area. Included in the study was data for all 12 states in each of four issue areas — school finance, professional certification, racial desegregation, and educational program improvement.

PAGE 55

48 Campbell and Mazzoni (1976) described the method used in the EGP study as an examination of diverse sources including newspaper files, official documents and reports, interest group publications, and other written materials. The research team also conducted interviews with both issue participants and knowledgeable informants. Issue-oriented interviews were not highly structured; nor was a single interview schedule used with all respondents. . .interviewers were to draw selectively from a list of basic questions. (p. 18) Besides the issue information noted above, perceptions of major actors were obtained about role performances (influence) in policy-making relationships. Ten different structured interview schedules were constructed for these major participants in each state. Over 400 interviews were held with these policy actors. The authors emphasized that the 12 EGP states did not create a probability sample, and that generalizations made pertained only to the states studied. Significant findings were as follows: 1. The ten state boards studied were not widely viewed as significant actors in the legislative arena. 2. There v/as no systematic relationship between the influence of the CSSO in the legislature area and his influence in the agency area. 3. CSSOs exerted in general great influence in the state agency arena.

PAGE 56

49 4. CSSOs varied in extent of involvement in educational policy-making. 5. Governors varied in extent of involvement in educational policy-making; those more involved were from states where legislatures had greater technical effectiveness . 6. In most states the education lobby was seen as fragmented, but no state fell into the syndical category (lannaccone ' s Type IV). 7. State legislatures played the most vital role in the determination of educational policy. 8. The education lobby was among the top groups in education policy influence. The weakest rating noted was in Florida. 9. Teachers' associations ranked highest when compared with the school board associations, administrators' associations, and teachers' federations; the school board associations ranked second; administrators made a poor showing. In commenting further upon the results of the EGP study, Mazzoni and Campbell (1976) stated that non-educators were becoming more involved in school policy-making; pluralism, however, was being countered by centralizing trends caused by costs, and a trend toward the bifurcated pattern caused by a labor-management cleavage. They wrote that

PAGE 57

50 By the beginning of 1970 's influence in many state education policy systems had become diffuse, relationships were in flux, and power in these systems was "up for grabs." Former allies, notably the school boards association and the teacher associations, were publicly at odds on a host of employer-employee issues. (p. 2) In writing about the EGP studies, Mazzoni (1978) observed that a disunity among educators was associated with diminished influence for both the education lobby and the CSSO. He predicted greater pluralism including legislators acting on educational issues (pp. 159-160). The role of the legislature as an actor rather than a referee was suggested in 1951 by David Truman in The Government Process . Some of the most challenging assignments were those of locating the sources of initiation of educational policy and of identifying the roles of government actors (pp. xxvi-xxxi) . Raphael Nystrand (1976), another participant in the EGP, interpreted findings in terms of lannaccone ' s four structured types of linkage of organized state education interest groups and the legislature. He noted that the data indicated that lannaccone was essentially correct in arguing that states would shift from Type II to Type III. In state-wide fragmented cases the diminished stature of the administrator contrasted markedly with the position of dominance noted by lannaccone in the state-wide

PAGE 58

51 monolithic type. Nystrand (1976) suggested that lannaccone ' s categories oversimplified reality in that they ignored the policy-making roles of governors, CSSOs, state boards of education, legislatures, and other interest groups. The EGP study found that both governors and CSSOs were influential. As an example, Nystrand stated that much of the impetus for change in the Florida foundation formula could be attributed to the efforts of urban legislators who responded to their constituents (pp. 260-261) . G eneral Analysis of State Studies From the review of multiple state case studies noted above, there has been a change in cohesion versus fragmentation of educational interest groups over time. In 1962 Bailey, Frost, Marsh, and Wood perceived coalition with little party divisions in the eight states studied. In the opinion of these authors, cohesion rather than fragmentation would produce greater legislative gains for public school education. In 1964 Masters, Salisbury, and Eliot found that cohesion or coalition was the dominant form in two of the three states studied. However, fragmentation and political arena conflict were noted in one of the states. In this state support for public school education had declined in the decade previous to the study.

PAGE 59

52 From a study of 12 states in 1968 Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz found important new shifts underway which were breaking down the traditional cohesive forms of educational politics. These authors speculated that the legislatures themselves might take on greater responsibility for policy formulation. Usdan predicted a dangerous power vacuum, which might be to the detrim.ent of public education. Campbell and Mazzoni, involved with the 1973 Educational Governance Project, found a fragmented lobby in most of the 12 states studied, and that state legislatures played the most vital role in determining educational policy. These authors, however, found that the education lobby was perceived to be among the top groups in influence on educational policy. This observation was in contradiction to the expectation or speculation of the authors of the earlier studies. Martin Burlingame and Terry G. Geske (1979) made a comprehensive examination of the multiple state case studies involving politics in education. They commented that the chief sources of data for these studies were historical documents and elite interviews. Not only were interview schedules and methods used to select interviewees generally not available, but it was clear that interview schedules were not rigidly structured or uniform and that a reputational

PAGE 60

53 technique was used to select interviewees. Only Mazzoni and Campbell included their interview schedule, but their interviewers were to draw selectively from the basic questions . In the opening paragraph of their article, Burlingame and Geske (1979) discussed the "new politics" of education. They observed that many scholars and others have suggested a dramatic change in the state politics of education in the past decade. Collective bargaining, teacher militancy, and pressures for fiscal restraint were forces which have stimulated the fragmentation of educational coalitions. Public attitudes were concerned with limited growth and more fiscal austerity. Education was seen to be in overt competition with other governmental services for fiscal resources. These factors characterized the new politics of a highly pluralistic and politicized decision-making process (p . 50 ) . After reviewing the studies these authors concluded that there was not much evidence that a new politics existed in state level educational politics; rather, they suggested that the politics of education is still a politics of interest groups. They observed, however, that further investigation is necessary to accurately assess whether or not there is a new politics of education. Five areas for

PAGE 61

54 future research in order to build a body of knowledge were suggested: (a) the professionalizing tendencies of state governments, (b) the trade-offs between professional status and increasing funding, (c) the role of public opinion, (d) the changes occurring over time, and (e) the relations among various levels of government. In speaking about the theoretical framework for these studies, Burlingame and Geske (1979) stated that, as in the field of sociology, most of the studies lacked rigor. While they termed these studies an important starting point, the authors stated that "most of the studies we reviewed permit neither theory formulation nor theory testing. Finally, few of the authors seemed deeply concerned about the use of their case studies to generate larger theoretical frames" {p. 65) . Susan Fuhrman (1980) in "School Finance Reform in the 1980s," noted that in the 1970 's a variety of forces increased the influence of legislatures, and particularly governors, and "decreased the cohesiveness of the educational establishment" (p. 123) . She stated that the most interesting political developments of the 1980 's "may be" the realignment of education interests, especially if educators are to survive the political, demographic, and fiscal maelstroms that lie ahead. Fuhrman predicted the return of the education lobby in some revised form (pp. 123-124) .

PAGE 62

55 Summary Literature about state educational lobbies was reviev7ed to obtain information about the effectiveness of fragmentation of such lobbies versus unity of these lobbies. In a study by Bailey, Frost, Marsh, and Wood (1962) of eight northeastern states, the authors found that a coalition, or a unity, of these lobbies was the dominant characteristic, and it was perceived that cooperative action was the more successful way to influence educational policy-making. In a 1964 study by Masters, Salisbury, and Eliot, the authors found that a fragmented lobby was likely to result in a high degree of uncertainty for educational lobby groups, and that these groups perceived they would be more successful with a unified approach and resulting predictable decision-making. Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz (1969) studied 12 states and found, despite important shifts underway, that coalitions were very influential factors in educational policy-making. Changes noted, however, involved teacher militancy and the breaking down of coalitions. These authors speculated that with a lack of unity in education the legislature might take on greater responsibility for policy formulation.

PAGE 63

56 Campbell and Mazzoni (1976) reported on the 1973 Educational Governance Project involving a study of 12 states. They found fragmentation a prevailing pattern with state legislatures playing the most vital role in determining educational policy. Teachers' organizations, however, ranked highest in influence of the educational groups, and the educational lobby was ranked among the top groups in policy influence. In reviewing these and other case studies Burlingame and Geske (1979) stated that these studies permitted neither theory formulation nor theory testing. lannaccone (1967) , in a well-known post-factum examination of some state studies, developed a four-stage typology to describe educational interest groups and government structure. In this typology, it was suggested that states passed through four stages of structure: (a) locally based disparate, (b) state-wide monolithic, (c) state-wide fragmented, and (d) state-wide syndical. lannaccone could not predict, from the data available, whether or not a state-wide monolithic structure (coalition) was more or less powerful than a state-wide fragmented lobby.

PAGE 64

I CHAPTER THREE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE CONCERNING INTEREST GROUPS Introduction The studies concerning educational interest groups noted in the previous chapter indicated, or predicted, what might come about in terms of state educational interest groups. Yet, with the exception of lannaccone ' s typology, these studies have been noted as lacking theoretical formulation. The writer has reviewed literature from political science and organizational fields in an attempt to develop a theoretical perspective to apply to state educational interest groups. The terms "lobby," "pressure group," and "interest group" evoke different emotions among most citizens. These terms and the more recently used "single interest group" have a somewhat sinister or selfish meaning to many citizens, for they are viewed as working against good governmental decisions. Yet, many other citizens view these terms positively and see these interest groups as ways in which citizen interests are properly expressed. Truman (1951) 57

PAGE 65

58 was among political writers who gave interest groups legitimacy and, in effect, saw interest groups as the essential elements of what we call government. The purpose of this chapter is to review relevant literature about the theory of interest groups including discussion of how and why they are formed and why people participate in them. Also discussed in this chapter are coalitions, the usefulness of typologies in understanding groups, and the developing role of legislatures and legislative staffs. Finally, the chapter is concluded with a theoretical discussion and a statement of propositions to be examined in the study. Unified Lobbies or Coalitions The effect of the fragmentation of unified interest groups or coalitions is a central theme of this dissertation. Consequently, the literature was reviewed concerning this aspect of interest groups. Several writers have commented upon the cohesion or fragmentation of an organized lobby or interest group. For example, Truman (1951) stated that instability was endemic to political interest groups (p. 210) It is not surprising then that Wilson (1973) stated that organizations rarely form lasting coalitions (p. 267).

PAGE 66

59 Clearly, if integrative mechanisms do not work, there are forces ready to fragment the organization. Easton (1957) also noted that an individual is ready to shift allegiance from one set of political authorities to another if there is a considerable disparity between perceived and desired images about the system. He noted, however, that the range of variation compatible with the maintenance of a political system would have to be settled empirically rather than theoretically (pp. 313-315) . Concerning a fragmented lobby, Browne (1977) observed that it was outrageous to think that legislative decision-making could be helped by a plethora of interest groups each articulating a contradictory position (p. 55) . Since resources are scarce, cooperation, rather than undermining, is necessary. Individuals who make up a coalition are likely to be similar in respect to age, sex, social class, and ideology (Wilson, 1973, p. 270). Therefore, sharp changes in these homogeneous factors would be expected to produce disturbances which in turn may lead to fragmentation. Typologies of Organization As noted in Chapter Two, lannaccone ' s analysis of state educational studies resulted in his four-type typology to describe the linkage between educational interest groups

PAGE 67

60 and government. From a welter of data a conceptual scheme or pattern was found or developed which helped to provide insight into and understanding of these events. In addition to descriptive categories, a typology may include a dynamic or predictive dimension. For example, lannaccone predicted a movement over time from Type I to Type IV. A typology then may be a very useful and insightful way of grouping or classifying events and the relationship between events. Blau and Scott (1962) referred to a typology as a multidimensional classification (p. 41). A variety of typologies about organizations are contained in organizational literature. Some of these typologies are somewhat similar and related to the composite theory which is discussed later in this chapter. Therefore, mention is now made of several of these typologies as an introduction to this section. Clark and Wilson (1961) analyzed an organization in terms of major incentives offered to its members. Material incentives were related to tangible goods, such as jobs and taxes; solidary incentives were related to socializing and friendship; and purposive incentives were related to ideological satisfactions (pp. 129-166) . A somewhat similar typology was found in studies of small groups by Benne and Sheats (1948) through an analysis of functional roles (using factor analysis) . These roles were (a) a group task role involving

PAGE 68

61 group effort to reach group goals; (b) a group-maintenance role involving the strengthening of the group by affective and supportive relations; and (c) individual roles involving the satisfaction of the individual's needs through such activities as personal recognition and aggression (pp. 44-48) . Simon (1957) also used a tripartite typology in considering the types of participants in an organization. The three types were (a) the customer, who valued organizational objectives; (b) the entrepreneur who was concerned with how the organization operated internally; and (c) the employee who obtained personal goals (pp. 114-117). Blau and Scott (1962) developed a typology of organizations based on the prime beneficiary (cui bono) of the organiza-tion. They noted (a) mutual benefit associations whose prime beneficiary was the membership; (b) business concerns with owners as the prime beneficiaries; (c) service organizations where the client was the prime beneficiary; and (d) commonweal organizations where the public at large was the prime beneficiary (pp. 42-43) . Three Theories to Analyze Interest Groups A review of literature revealed at least three distinct groups of theories for analyzing interest groups which may be termed (a) sociological theory; (b) exchange"

PAGE 69

62 theory, and (c) rational theory. These theories are discussed in the following paragraphs, and a theoretical framework for this study is developed from these theories. Sociological Theory Truman's (1951) comprehensive work, The Governmental Process , is the major basis for the sociological theory. In analyzing Canadian teacher interest groups, Manzer (1969) called Truman's theory of organization "the sociological theory." According to Mahood (1967), Truman resurrected and modified concepts expounded in Arthur F. Bentley's The Process of Government (published in 1908) concerning group activity; and Truman's speculative study of groups added much to the understanding of the political process (p. 18). Gar son termed Truman's The Governmental Process a "modern classic" which became a central part of a new period of growth in political science; one which emphasized the interest group approach to politics (Garson, 1978, p. 9). Another important work involving pluralism and groups was Dahl's Who Governs? (1961), involving the study of decision-making processes in New Haven. This work became a pluralist classic, and supported Dahl's earlier stated view of government machinery as being divided and subdivided with "numerous groups of officials in competition and conflict with each other" (Dahl, 1956, p. 137). The

PAGE 70

63 methodology used became known as the decision-making (a decision analysis) approach to studying power structures. Generally, the pluralistic view supported (a) the widespread sharing of power by groups and individuals (fragmentation) in decision-making, (b) reciprocal power relationships, and (c) changes in influence over time and from issue to issue (Peterson, 1974, p. 359). The publication of The Governmental Process at the height of the cold war may be of significance in helping to explain its widespread influence within the scholarly community. In the early 1950 's extreme conservatism appeared to be the form of mass politics. Scholars, however, generally were liberal in outlook, and stressed the value of pluralistic politics which allowed organized interest groups to be heard and the consequences of policy to be debated (Wilson, 1973, p. 344). In a pluralistic system, Presthus (1964) observed that political power was fragmented among the branches of government and shared between the state and a multitude of private groups and individuals (p. 10) Group pressures were essentially beneficial to society because they were constantly moderated by pressures resulting from widespread overlapping group memberships (Truman, 1951, pp. 158-168). According to Lindblom (1968) interest groups were "important instruments" for helping legislators by

PAGE 71

64 showing them with "fact and analysis" how to reach a decision (p. 66) . They were seen then to provide an essential information service. While the operation of pressure groups (political pluralism) was sometimes chaotic and sometimes selfish, the fact that they could pursue their interests freely and openly was a sign "that our political processes are in a healthy state" (Mahood, 1967, p. 303). Truman (1951) argued that governmental decisions are the result of effective access to government by various interests. He noted that the stability of these decisions depended upon the strength of the supporting interests and on the severity of disturbances in the society which affected that strength (p. 50 7) . Truman explained the organization of groups in terms of reaction to environmental disturbances which upset established patterns of interaction. A profound disturbance may result in the formation of an association to stabilize group relations. Modern society has produced more interactions between people, and pressure group politics is related to the degree to which a society is modernized. A disturbance, then, may set off a "wave" of interest groups or establish patterns of interaction which not only form and guide the attitudes and behavior of their pariticipants but attempt to exert power over other groups. Truman argued that the behavior which constituted the process of government

PAGE 72

65 could not be adequately understood apart from groups — especially active organized interest groups (pp. 43, 59, 502-505) . An organization's effective access to governinent involved (a) the group's position in society — its status, how it plays the rules of the game, whether government officials are members, and its usefulness as a source of information; (b) factors internal to the group—the degree of organization, cohesion, leadership skills, resources; and (c) the structure of legislative institutions (Truman, 1971, pp. 506-507) . This sociological approach to the understanding of interest groups emphasized the environment, disturbances in relationships, the resulting formation or adaptation of interest groups, cohesion of interest groups, their power over members, and their ability to obtain access to government. While government may be more than a passive participant, government action, independent of pressure group influence, was not stressed. And, of course, individual action was largely controlled by group norms and activities. In summary, the formation and political actions of groups was a spontaneous process stimulated by forces acting on people, rather than the result of an elite leadership activity.

PAGE 73

66 Exchange Theory of Groups In an introduction to the second edition of The Governmental P rocess ^ written twenty years after the first edition, Truman (1971) stated that if he were rewriting the book he would give considerably more prominence to the function of the elite in the organization (p. xliv) . The role of the elite in policy-making was documented by Floyd Hunter in Community Power Structure (1953) . Hunter found that a relatively few prominent persons dictated policymaking in a large coromunity of 500,000 people. This was further developed on the state level by Hunter (1959) in his description of politics in South Carolina. Hunter's South Carolina views seem.ed to be corroborated by the study reported by McMillan (1963) . In the monopolistic structure observed by McMillan, many of the elite did not hold public office. Hunter's methodology was based on survey research of the reputational aspect of power, using in-depth interviews of prominent persons (Nunnery and Kimbrough, 1971, p. 26). Salisbury (1969) concentrated upon the role of the entrepreneur or elite who made potential members aware of the benefits of joining an organization. His argument was that interest group formation, growth, death, and lobbying activity can be explained by regarding them as "exchange relationships between entrepreneurs/organizers, who invest

PAGE 74

67 in a set of benefits, which are then offered to potential members" (p. 2) . The success of an organization was then dependent upon the quality of entrepreneurship which involved a mutually satisfactory exchange between the members and the entrepreneur. This view of organizational development focussed upon the leader as the main impetus, rather than disturbances in society. Salisbury (1969) further argued that the sociological theory did not adequately explain organizational failures. He stated that it was the entrepreneur, not the group, in an organization who was the initiator of the enterprise. He recognized the importance of ideological factors in organizational development, and noted also that groups which stressed values exclusively were unstable and transient (pp. 7-20). In examining 83 public interest groups. Berry (1978) found that about two-thirds of them were initiated by entrepreneurs and only about one-third initiated by disturbances. He concluded that many organizations existed simply because of the single-minded determination and the self-sacrifice of the entrepreneur (pp. 395-397) . From an analysis of studies of small groups. Verba (1961) concluded that the degree to which a charismatic leader identified with the membership gave him leeway to

PAGE 75

68 deviate somewhat from group norms . The leader had what was termed "acceptance capital." Verba observed that the rejection of one leader often aided the process of change because of a tendency of followers to suspend the rules for a new leader during what was often a short honeymoon period (pp. 201-203) . From a series of studies concerning political alienation, David C. Schwartz, a political scientist, reasoned that the individual will reinvest the identification he withdrew from the political system (and its leaders, groups, ideologies, etc.) if the counter-elites, counter-groups, countercultures that are bidding for his support convince him that his value conflict and his perceptions of inefficacy will thereby be reduced or reversed. (Schwartz, 1973, p. 28) Individuals become alienated when they perceive that the political system is incapable of being consistent with their fundamental politicized values. They withdraw identification from it; and since the link between these values and conformist behavior is thereby weakened, they are likely to select a new and nonconformist behavior mode (Schwartz, 1973, p. 159) . Hence new leadership may more readily sell a new approach. In a study of regional educational organizations in Florida, Ralph Kimbrough (1979) concluded that survival or death of the organization was more related to leadership

PAGE 76

69 1 and organizational arrangement than to destructive forces in the environment (p. 41) . Of course, throughout history the examples of the impact of dedicated leaders upon organizations are numerous. According to the exchange theory, it is the entrepreneur (leader, organizer, elite) who makes members or potential members aware of the benefits of the organization, or of a change in organization. Particularly if members have doubts about their efficacy in the system or organization, there is fertile ground for nev; leadership with new values. The skill, charisma, and commitment of the leader is an important ingredient in the formation, or reformation, and success of many interest groups. This second approach suggested for analyzing educational interest group formation and fragmentation is to stress the prime importance of dedicated leadership, and the potential for ideological commitment involving a change in norms . Rational Theory of Interest Groups Olson's The Logic of Collective Action (1965) is the basis for the rational theory of interest groups. His work is based upon the assumptions about group theory involving the "costs and benefits of alternative courses

PAGE 77

70 of action open to individuals in groups of different sizes" (p. 21) . These relationships include such factors as cost, the rate at which the good is obtained, the size of the group, the fraction of the group gain each individual receives, the group gain, and the individual gain. Olson (1965) stressed the importance of the rational and self-interested individual rather than charismatic leadership, and questioned the group theory tissumption that groups of individuals with coirimon interests would attempt to further these common interests. A rational individual calculates the costs and benefits of belonging to an organization and will join only if the benefits are at least as great as the costs of belonging {pp. 1-2, 48-51) Olson expressed his assumptions in mathematical form and solved for varying arrangements of the factors. Olson provided, however, a "non-technical" summary and explanation of his v/or^. and avoided using the diagramjnaticmatheraatical language of economics where feasible. hs an economist using the tools of economic theory, he pointed out that his conclusions were just as relevent to the sociologist and the political scientist as to the economist (pp. 21-23) .

PAGE 78

71 Olson (1965) commented about large groups: A lobbying organization, or indeed a labor union or any other organization, working in the interests of a large group of firms or workers in some industry, would get no assistance from the rational, self-interested individuals in that industry. This would be true even if everyone in the industry were absolutely convinced that the proposed program was in their interest. (p. 11) In a very small group, however, where each member gets a substantial proportion of the total gain simply because there are few members, a collective good can be provided by the voluntary contributions of members. They can see the perceptible difference their contribution makes to benefits of belonging to the organization (p. 34) . By Olson's argument, rational self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests. If a public or collective good cannot be withheld from others in the group, only a selective economic incentive will stimulate a rational individual in a latent group to act in a group-oriented way. In commenting upon the development of the study of interest groups since 1951, Truman (1971) stated that the most suggestive theoretical contribution in this time period was made by Olson. Truman (1971) said:

PAGE 79

72 Briefly, the thrust of Olson's argximent is that a large aggregate of individuals sharing a common interest will not, if they are acting rationally and economically, come together as a lobbying organization, since the product of so doing is a collective or public good — that is, a good that cannot be derived to anyone in the aggregate who refuses to "buy" in (in this case, to join the organization and pay dues) . In the absence of coercion or some kind of inducement that can be restricted to participants (those who "buy") the public good will not be produced (the organization will not be formed) , assuming that the individuals in the aggregate are numerous and that they are acting in a rational, economizing fashion, (p. xxviii) In a 1969 article Manzer contrasted the "economic" theory of interest groups as developed by Olson with the "sociological" theory as mentioned above. In applying these theories to Canadian teachers' associations, Manzer found that there was evidence not only of a sociological explanation for the formation of teachers' associations, but that there was evidence that one or more selective inducements contributed to the establishment and maintenance of these associations. For example, the rapid formation of teachers' associations in the early 1900 's was in tune with Trum.an ' s proposition that "severe disturbances" produce associations to stabilize group relations. Disturbances noted included teacher dissatisfaction with salaries which did not keep pace with war-time inflation, post-war ideas of social equality, willingness of groups to get involved in politics, compulsory education laws.

PAGE 80

73 shortages of teachers, and urbanization. In addition to these factors teachers' organizations could provide such selective incentives as "individual protective services, professional exchange, and social initiatives" (pp. 106-107) . In reviewing the automatic membership provisions of Canadian teachers' associations, Manzer concluded that little influence would be lost if such provisions were withdrav/n, but that it would be very different if selective benefits were withdrawn (p. 114) . Because Manzer (1969) observed that teacher behavior in joining associations was not always rational he reformulated Olson 'a theory to incorporate relevent ideas from sociological theory (such as collective benefits) . By expressing these assumptions in mathematical form and analyzing them, Manzer concluded that Olson's assumptionof individual rationality v/as not weakened by the addition of collective benefits, and in the absence of selective inducements or coercion "a pressure group cannot be successfully maintained over time" (p. 116) . Pamela Oliver (1980) stated that the "rationality of collective action varies from situation to situation, depending upon the cost of the good, its value to an individual, the probability that the good would be provided without contribution, and the effect of group size on

PAGE 81

74 these conditions. In a theoretical analysis of rewards and punishments as selective incentives for collective action she explained (using mathematical models as did Olson) that positive and negative selective incentives have different structural implications when used to induce collective action. Positive selective incentives are given to "those who have cooperated, " while negative selective incentives are distributed to those who have not cooperated. She concluded that positive incentives are especially efficient in a relatively small proportion of a group (an elite) , whereas negative incentives are needed to ensure unanimous cooperation (mass of membership) in costly collective action, but have side effects of disharmony (p. 1364) . Moe (1980a), in "A Calculus of Group Membership," also extended Olson's work by relaxing assumptions to allow for a broader range of individual values and perceptions, such as ideology, social pressures, and efficacy. Moe commented that two types of criticism had been expressed about Olson's views: one contended that other kinds of incentives influenced the individual's decision, such incentives as ideology, moral principles, and social pressures; the other criticism was that individuals were not "perfectly informed" about the costs and benefits of

PAGE 82

75 political success, and that "subjective estimates" of such quantities may well place a higher value on politics. Most formal extensions of Olson's model were "essentially efforts to develop the original analysis of collective goods with greater rigor" including "the optimal provision of collective good, the relationship between optimality and group size, the role of income effects, the existence of equilibrium solutions." Moe suggested that this kind of approach did not address some of the most basic aspects of interest groups (pp. 594-595) . To look at these aspects Moe (1980a) attempted to build on Olson's analyses by relaxing the assumption of perfect information; by taking dues, selective incentives and collective goods into account simultaneously as influencing an individual's choice; and by allowing for non-economic inducements, since people "join groups for reasons ranging from ideological commitment to perceptions of efficacy," not just for economic inducements (p. 567). Moe concluded from his mathematical analysis that an individual will join the group when "the value of selective incentives exceeds the amount kept by the organization plus the amount wasted on politics" (p. 613). An allowance for efficacy leads to a more politicized perspective on group membership than the one popularized by Olson. Non-economic incentives may also affect an individual's

PAGE 83

76 evaluation of collective goods and selective benefits. For example, purposive incentives based on values, political ideology, and notions of right and wrong may be very important. In addition, solidary selective incentives involving social pressure may provide important, if somewhat intangible, benefits. When efficacy and non-material incentives come into play politics need not be a by-product at all. Some individuals may "rationally join" an organization for political reasons and/or social activities. Moe concluded that something beyond the "logic of membership" (which involved the setting up of assumptions and the use of mathematical equations) was now needed, that something being an emphasis on empirical research (pp. 615-630). In a recent book. The Organization of Interests , Moe (1980b) stated that the pluralist tradition suffered a "dramatic setback" with the appearance of The Logic of Collecti ve Action in which Olson flatly discounted the core pluralist belief that interest groups arose on the basis of common interests. According to Moe, Olson's presentation was "an economic theory of interest groups," and Olson's central concepts of collective benefits and selective incentives were well suited for "capturing the essence of how interest groups emerge and what goes on inside them" (pp. 3-5)

PAGE 84

77 In his book Moe (1980b) again suggested that Olson's original model was too restrictive even if it was well suited to the mathematical techniques of economic importance. Olson's model assumed that every individual was rational, that the individual was perfectly informed and premised his decisions on specified types of information, and that the individual valuated alternatives on the basis of specified values (pp. 13-15). In Moe ' s presentation, these restrictions are relaxed, and Moe included the importance of the entrepreneur and the importance of sociological factors. Moe agreed that important aspects of Olson's work were supportable, such as the crucial motivational role of selective incentives, the idea that political activities are largely by-products of the sale of selective incentives, and the suggestions that there is no necessary congruence between member goals and group goals. However, while the individual may primarily seek economic gain rather than purposive or solidary gains, this does not mean that politics is unimportant, nor that purposive and solidary incentives can be ignored. Otherwise there would be an incomplete and inadequate explanation of group membership (pp. 199-200) .

PAGE 85

78 Moe and others, then, have noted the importance of the contribution of Olson's rational, self-interested man approach to interest group theory. Yet there are incentives, other than economic, which are to be taken into consideration. This statement is not particularly startling, since observation of people, in educational groups at least, supports the importance of emotive, ideological, and social incentives. A comprehensive model for understanding interest groups should, in the opinion of the writer, include group benefits, ideological benefits or thrusts, and individual benefits. The Legislature as an Initiator Truman (1971) saw society as setting the rules regarding fair play which defined appropriate behavior for legislators, and he suggested that groups whose demands would require these forbidden behaviors were likely to get a cool reception by legislators (pp. 232, 349-350). Many but not all writers ignored the role of the government itself in initiating action. Odegard (1958) chastized group theorists for regarding public policy as simply the parallelograms of group forces; and while it was reasonable to reject rationality as the sole factor in political decision-making, it was not reasonable to

PAGE 86

79 reject rationality as a factor in political decisionmaking, nor was it reasonable to banish the idea of a rational decision-maker motivated by the public interest (p. 699) . Dearlove (1973) also questioned theories about public policy-making which alv/ays assumed a dominant role for interest groups over weak and passive governments. He suggested that such mechanistic input-output models did not distinguish between the operational and the psychological environment and overlooked the reaction and attitudes of legislators. Rather than government being controlled by the environment, he suggested that government is able to control and shape those aspects of the environment which affect government activity. Knowledge of the rules of access, of informational sources, and of the ideology of legislators is also very important, and therefore the simple pressure group theory was an inadequate explanation; it failed to record the initiative and strong response which could come from the legislature (pp. 58-59, 173-175, 230). In 1976 Putnam reported on interest group research conducted in Canada and the United States. This research involved 2400 interviews of randomly selected members of political elites — legislators, senior civil servants, and interest group directors in Washington and Ottawa, as

PAGE 87

80 well as in three states and three provinces. The aims of this research were to describe and explain group structure process and effectiveness, and to discover the pattern of influence among the groups. According to Putnam, government could not be treated as just another interest group since it controlled the formal political apparatus, and since it was a forum rather than a "singleminded" unit (pp. 40, 66-68). It appeared to Putnam (1976) that interest groups had become "senior partners" in governmental policy determination, mainly by providing an information service on pending legislation. Such service was very valuable because the government elite had neither the time nor the knowledge "to analyze the range of legislation presented to them." A relatively "unresearched element" in the political process, according to Putnam was the extent to which increasing numbers of professional staff exercised decisive legislative influence. Putnam observed that many legislators and bureaucrats "cited these specialists as being central elements in the legislative process" (p. 10) . In a 1969 publication concerning a study of four states, Zeigler and Baer concluded that interest group systems were generally associated with short legislative sessions, frequent turnover, part-time job nature, and an

PAGE 88

81 amateur status for state politics (p. 61) . In a study of California Wyner (1973) concluded that "different kinds of interactions," including more interaction between lobbyists and staff personnel, were required since lobbyists by that time had to present much more detailed justifications of their proposals (p. 88). The Legislative Staff — A Fourth House? Zeigler and van Dalen (1976) found changes associated with full-time and adequately staffed legislatures. Because of a decline in influence of single or amalgamated group interests, lobbying techniques had changed and had become attuned to the "political dynamics of individual state legislatures" and to the "subtleties of legislator-lobbyist interchange" (p. 135) . Worman (1975) reviewed his 1970 survey of 31 senators and 32 representatives serving in the Florida Legislature, and their assistants, for a total of 126 individuals. He concluded from his responses that the "potential for abuse of power" by aides was definitely present, since there was not a great deal of contact between the legislator and the aide. Because there was a high rate of legislator approval of aide activity in representing the legislator's opinion in such areas as the constituency, the press, committees.

PAGE 89

82 bill researching, and lobbyists, Worman concluded that there was a possibility of aides "initiating legislation peculiar to their interests" (pp. 87, 102, 104). Some authors have wondered whether large and expert staffs provided a mixed blessing. For example, Heaphey (1975) stated that there was a need to learn more about "what must be double-edged swords of staff contributions" (p. 8) . Along with an increased legislative research and policy capability, Patterson (1976) reported a growing state emphasis on "program and performance evaluation" (p. 146-148) . From a study in Wisconsin Rosenthal (1973) saw increased staffing for the caucuses and the fiscal bureau leading to more centralization of legislative decision-making (p. 32) , Meller (1952) saw staffs influencing policy outcome even when only assembling data, and observed that it was a myth that they were detached from policy formulation (p. 122) . Some years later Meller (1967) concluded that indiscrimate staffing could lead to "each legislator becoming the captive of his own staff" (pp. 383-384). Arthur Macmahon (1943) foresaw a danger that the growth in staff could create a new bureaucracy which would insulate legislators from their constituents (p. 187) . In California staffing patterns shifted froman initial emphasis on information specialists to a later

PAGE 90

83 emphasis on political experts. Baaklini (1975) saw an inherent conflict between values of a legislative bureaucracy (elitist, secretive, hierarchical, career-oriented), and values of the legislature (open, representative, collegial) (p. 234) . In a PhD dissertation entitled "Professional Staffing in the New York State Legislature: An Exploratory Study" Balutis (1973) concluded that professional staffs were not merely neutral agents devoid of values and providing purely objective data. In a 1975 publication, Balutis cites data from his PhD dissertation which emphasized the influence of legislative staff. His study involved 148 interviews, 62 with professional staff members, 51 with legislators, 20 with members of the executive branch, 10 with lobbyists, and 5 with journalists (p. 111). The following table gives Balutis' findings regarding legislative staff influence.

PAGE 91

84 Table 1 Views of Legislative Staff Influence Proportion Viewing Legislative Staff as very not Group influential influential influential Legislators (50) 44% 52% 4% Executive Personnel (20) 55% 40% 5% Lobbyists (10) 20% 70% 10% Staffers (62) 27% 64% 8% (Balutis, 1975, p. 127) Balutis stated that the staffing of legislatures introduced a third force of experts into the policy process to serve as "a corrective to the bias of the special interests and to the substantive recommendations of the executive" (p. 28) . Balutis concluded also that increased staffing did not eliminate the dependency of legislators upon others for information, but only transferred it from the executive branch to legislative staff experts. The latter were seen to be important participants in the legislative process whose views had important implications for policy-making. In fact, the legislature may have created

PAGE 92

85 its own counter bureaucracy which may "come to possess all the characteristics of the executive bureaucracy it was created to control" (p. 360) . In 1979 Press and VanBurg noted a dramatic increase in the size of permanent legislative staffs in the previous decade. They suggested that while it was not yet fashionable to speak of the "legislative bureaucracy," it soon would be, and that the appellation "Fourth House" now applied to congressional staff, soon would be applied to state legislative staffs (the "Third House" was seen to consist of the lobbyists) (p. 267) . One reason given was the desire of legislative members for the independence to develop initiatives and alternatives. In a 1978 article dealing with developments in school finance reform, Fuhrman saw evidence that states were building "their own in-house capacities for the kind of analysis modern school financing requires." Educational interest groups had become fragmented, and legislatures had become full-time, modern, and efficient areas for policy setting and monitoring. A staffed, committed legislature, according to Fuhrman, was more likely to initiate its own educational policies, to question schoolmen, and to be concerned with the

PAGE 93

86 appropriate implementation of policies {pp. 174-175) . Most writers generally agreed that much more study is needed to determine what impact professional staffing has on state legislatures. Discussion An adequate theory for interest groups and political influence would have to include the roles of individuals, groups, and leaders on particular issues over different times. It would bridge the gap between the hierarchy associated with elitism and the group action noted in pluralism; and it would recognize the influence of the ideological needs and intellectual modes of the times. This writer has combined components from three wellrecognized groups of theories to develop an integrated approach to the analysis of educational interest groups. The sociological theory discussed is group-centered, involves social pressures and social incentives, deals with reactions to disturbances in the environment, and yet is relatively stable. The exchange theory is leadercentered, involves moral principles, ideology, charisma, and tends to be unstable. The rational theory focuses on the rational, self-seeking individual, is concerned with -

PAGE 94

87 i . I material incentives and is relatively stable. An integrated theory involving the group, the leader, and the individual member will be used in the remainder of this study to analyze educational interest groups and their potency for cohesion or fragmentation. The characteristics of the three theories to be used by the writer are shown in Table 2 . Table 2 Key Features of Three Theories Item Sociological Exchange Rational Group/ Individual Group Centered Leader Centered Individual Centered Incentives Social Ideology (and charisma) Material Benefit Emphasis Collective Ideological (political ) Selective Stability Stable Unstable Stable These three general theories correspond roughly to the typology, using solidary, purposive, and material incentives, developed by Clark and Wilson (1961) which has been discussed earlier.

PAGE 95

88 By an integration of these three approaches in the analysis of educational interest groups, one set of stable relationships can be replaced by another after an unstable interval. This interval reflects an imbalance of relationships which unfreezes the system and exists until the relationships are brought into a new equilibrium (Benne and Birnbaum, 1969, p. 329). State educational lobby groups, even when termed monolithic, consist of constituent parts, any one of which may provide stimulus to fragmentation. As has been noted, such coalitions are subject to fragmentary pressures from the environment or from constituent organizational change. These lobbies generally are organizations of . leaders from groups and depend upon these leaders being in tune with and able to lead the constituent groups (Wilson, 1973, p. 278). If forces happen to cause a shift in the values of the membership in a constituent organization, and if new leadership (especially charismatic leadership) with new values emerges then there will be potential fragmentation of a unified lobby. This is especially true, of course, if the unified lobby is unable to assimilate the change in values in its working relationships. Such lobbies generally are composed of individuals with similar characteristics and values, and if these

PAGE 96

89 leaders lose their ability to lead their organizations, new leadership may emerge which is not in tune with the approach of the unified lobby. The concept of environmental disturbances may affect a lobby indirectly through the impact of these disturbances on a constituent organization. The glue which holds the leadership of a unified lobby together is their homogeneity, the knowledge that their contributions (in such a small group) count, and a belief in and affective ties to the worthwhileness of their efforts. These leaders are not impelled by economic selective incentives for themselves, nor are they coerced into belonging. The general membership of constituent organizations is not much involved in the unified lobby. If all goes well and benefits are provided, then the constituent organizations are less likely to jar the relationship at the lobby level and there is, of course, little likelihood that the leaders in the lobby, having a homogeneous background and ideological stance, would stimulate any fragmentation of the lobby. If a large organization, however, is not only jarred by "disturbances in the environment" which tend to produce alienation, but by the emotional and charismatic appeal of a new leader with

PAGE 97

90 a new vision of an organization's goals, then there is potential for a period of disorientation and instability. During this transient period the organization will change, and eventually a new stability will be obtained. This writer suggests that collective benefits of the sociological theory, supplemented by the value benefits of the exchange theory, and the selective economic benefits of the rational theory, provide a fuller and more dynamic explanation of organizational cohesion or fragmentation than any one of these theories. This approach suggests also a v/ave of action from one type of organizational stability to another. Conflict and f ragm.entation are parts of this movement, as organizations reform in response to disturbances, pressures, and incentives involving the group, the leaders, and the individual members. Olson's theory is an important addition to the understanding of pressure groups, but, of course, group members are not only rational in terms of material incentives but have thoughts, feelings, and emotions which impel them to act from both an ideological and a sociological viewpoint. According to this integrated approach, any new arrangement in an educational interest group will reflect not only characteristics of the sociological theory and exchange

PAGE 98

91 theory but of the rational/economic theory as well, so that sociological, ideological, and rational incentives are all considered. Legislatures, as a result of a fragmented lobby disturbance, are expected to be much more than passive referees in the power struggle that results. Aroused and militant teachers are expected to become more aggressive and influential, and the legislature also is expected to be aroused in response to the disturbances and be directly involved in initiating legislation and in overcoming open threats to its power. In a sense this was forecast by Truman's idea of disturbances producing a "wave" of organizational change as action produces reaction. The conflict associated with the exchange approach is not just a means of change but a mechanism for producing a new equilibrium and stability. The legislature is not an interest group in the same sense as is the FEA, and the sociological, rather than the rational, emphasis is used to explain its reaction to fragmentation of the education lobby. Initiation of legislative policy, and a locus of accommodation for the differing interests shifted toward the legislature following fragmentation of the unified lobby.

PAGE 99

92 Suininary Literature from political science and organizational fields has been reviewed in an attempt to develop propositions about state educational interest groups. A typology was developed from three theories concerning interest groups The sociological theory was group-centered, involved social incentives and collective benefits, and explained formation of organizations as reactions to environmental disturbances. The exchange theory discussed was leadercentered, involved ideological incentives and benefits, and explained formation of organizations as an exchange between a charismatic leader and potential members, to whom the leader offers benefits. The rational theory discussed centered around the self-interested individual, explained membership in an organization in terms of selfinterest (the individual gets out of the organization at least as much as the cost of belonging) , and involved selective economic benefits from, and/or coercion by, the organization. It was suggested by the writer that there was movement from the sociological, through the exchange, to the rational mode of organization — the exchange mode being an unstable one.

PAGE 100

93 The review of literature revealed a growing dominance of the legislature in state educational policy-making, and a growth in influence of legislative staffs. These events followed fragmentation of educational coalitions and the emergence of more militant teachers' organizations. The longer term, larger staffed legislatures became initiators of educational legislation. The influence of the legislative staffs began to be seen in the past decade as very influential. Concern was noted that legislative staffs could prove a mixed blessing to legislatures. They might accumulate such a great amount of influence over the direction of policy-making that legislatures might become the captives of their own staffs. Propositions From a review of the literature, including both situational and theoretical studies, the writer formulated eight propositions about the fragmentation of unified state educational lobbies. The function of these propositions is to serve as a focus for the examination of the fragmentation of the Florida educational lobby. Fragmentation of state unified educational lobbies has been noted in the literature to have a close association with the activity

PAGE 101

94 of state teachers' organizations. The propositions which follow are viewed by the writer as logically consistent with the literature reviewed and discussed in this Chapter and in Chapter Two. 1. Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby is accompanied by an increased role in educational policy-making by the legislature. 2. Fragmentation of a unified state educatibnal lobby is accompanied by an increased influence in educational policy-making by the legislative staffs. 3. Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby is accompanied by a decreased immediate influence in educational policy-making by the constituents of the educational lobby, followed later by an increase in influence. 4. Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby eventually is followed by an increased influence in educational policy-making by the teachers' organization (s) . 5. The fragmented educational lobby eventually will be replaced by a new coalition or syndical group, including legislative staff, to accommodate differing demands concerning educational policy. 6. Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby is initiated by disturbances which affect the stability of a state teachers' organization.

PAGE 102

95 7. A state teachers' organization is moved from a sociological mode of organization toward a rational one, and may pass through a relatively unstable exchange phase, when the membership accepts new values and new leadership in exchange for the expectation of better conditions. 8. The stability of a teachers' organization (or interest group) is influenced by its ability to provide selective incentives to, or its ability to coerce, its members .

PAGE 103

CHAPTER FOUR ' RESULTS OF THE FLORIDA FIELD STUDY Preview Responses to the items in the interview guide are presented in this chapter. Not all respondents answered all items, and in some cases respondents gave more than one answer to the item. For example, in describing significant changes which took place in political influence in the past 10-15 years, a respondent might give none, one, or more answers. The few cases having considerable difference in response between various groups of respondents, such as between representatives and senators, are commented upon. As noted previously, interview data were collected from 45 persons who participated in or who were knowledgeable about educational lobbying activities. These persons were first contacted by a letter from the writer ' s advisor and then telephoned by the writer to arrange interviews. Personal interviews were arranged with about one-half of the respondents in differing regions of the state. Further interviews were carried out by telephone. 96

PAGE 104

97 Changes in Educational Lobbies The interviewees were asked to respond to the following interview guide item. 1. Changes have taken place in the political influence of state education groups or lobbies in the past 10-15 years. Describe briefly significant changes as you perceive them. Table 3 Changes in Influence in the Past 10-15 Years Response Frequency Percentage Fragmentation or diffusion of educational lobby 20 Collective bargaining (unionization) 18 Greater teacher organization influence 16 The 1968 walkout (or strike) 7 Lobby groups m.ore political 6 Increased influence of legislature and staffs 4 Narrower interests by lobbyists 4 Stronger urban county efforts 3 Weaker teacher lobby 3 Business community interest in education ]_ 24 22 20 8 7 5 5 4 4 82 100

PAGE 105

98 Although most respondents answered this item, some stated that they were unable to provide information on what happened 10-15 years ago. While respondents generally answered in relation to the time in which they served in the legislature or with some other group, many respondents expressed opinions about what changes they perceived to take place prior to their service with the legislature or with the group they were associated with at the time of the interview. Respondents were obviously very aware that the educational lobby had been fragmented as this was the change most frequently noted. Many respondents referred to the emergence of teachers' unions and militant action which helped to split the old lobby. Some noted that this divisive process had commenced before the 1968 strike. A number of respondents observed that teachers did not have much voice in the old lobby, and that since 1968 teachers realized they needed both a negotiation process to express their views and political influence to effect change. Fragmentation was often mentioned in association with the split in teachers' ranks and the formation of two competing teachers' organizations. Several respondents observed that about the time of the strike large school districts had begun to hire full-time lobbyists to present

PAGE 106

99 their special views to the legislature. Increase in influence of these special interest groups was seen to have also contributed to fragmentation. A teachers' organization representative said the educational lobby was terribly fragmented, and a civil servant commented upon the proliferation of splinter groups espousing special interests. One senator said that because of f ragm.entation the educational lobby was its own worst enemy. As was reviewed in the literature, fragmentation of educational lobbies was a development of the 1960 's and lannaccone perceived fragmentation to be one distinct phase in the development of educational lobbies. The next most frequent response cited was collective bargaining which often was associated with unionization. Respondents noted that following the 1968 strike the FEA was at a low point in influence. Some respondents were aware that in 1968 a new state constitution was adopted containing a right to work provision which was to prove helpful to teachers' organizations in regaining influence. The provision indicated that employees had the right to bargain collectively, although it prohibited public employees from striking. After a decison of the Florida Supreme Court which concluded that this bargaining right was applicable to public employees.

PAGE 107

100 the legislature was pressured into enacting collective bargaining legislation for public employees in 1974 despite the fact that some legislators and others claimed that the constitutional change in 1968 did not envisage collective bargaining provisions for public employees (Williams, 1979, pp. 475-479) . Despite fragmentation of the unified lobby and the fragmentation of the pre-1968 FEA, many respondents expressed the opinion that greater teachers' organization influence was a noteworthy change in the 10-15 years prior to the survey. Only three respondents indicated that the teachers' organization lobby was now weaker than the pre1968 lobby. The increase in strength noted by the majority of respondents fits in with the findings from the EGP study noted in the review of literature. A number of respondents expressed the view that the teachers' organization lobby was very weak in the years immediately following the strike. For example, one respondent made particular mention of the deep resentment the strike stirred up in many legislators, school board members, and members of the public; another commented that the first impulse of those in authority was to punish teachers. Such comments generally were from those who were active in government or education at the time of the strike. The growth in

PAGE 108

101 influence by teachers' organizations followed the enactment of collective bargaining procedures for teachers' organizations and the development of a more effective political influence program. The strike was specifically mentioned as a noteworthy change by seven respondents but many others mentioned the strike in reference to fragmentation of the unified lobby and in reference to unionization of teachers. Those specifically mentioning the strike as a noteworthy change generally were in office at the time of the strike. Some respondents noted that the FEA adopted a dramatic change in tactics (towards militancy) following a changeover in leadership. One senator, for example, stated that the bitter and divisive strike shifted the FEA from a professional to a radical approach. One former legislator stated that unions came in and convinced teachers that unions could do more for them. An older legislator spoke of the adversarial relationship espoused by Phil Constans, Jr., the Executive Secretary of the FEA, as well as the adversarial role adopted by the Governor of that time. Another respondent stated that the growth of unionization was precipitated by the walkout which in his opinion was badly handled by the FEA leadership.

PAGE 109

102 Greater political action by lobby groups was expressed by six respondents. As will be seen from answers to other items on the survey, some lobby groups were perceived to have gained considerably in know-how and influence. The literature reviewed in Chapter Two suggested the development in the 1960 's and 1970 's of a more highly pluralistic and politicized decision-making process regarding state educational lobbies. While in general teachers' groups were perceived to lose influence immediately following the strike and the legislature was perceived to exert more influence during this time, only four respondents specifically noted increased influence of the legislature and staffs. Since the items on the survey dealt with changes in influence of state education groups or lobbies, it is possible that most respondents would not consider the legislature or its staffs to be a part of this survey item. Responses to other items on the survey where legislative staffs are specifically mentioned will be discussed later. Some respondents commented on the narrower interests of lobbies in recent times. A recent term for the narrowest of interests is the "single issue group." Such narrowness

PAGE 110

103 was compared with the greater overall interest in education shown by the pre-1968 unified lobby. Teachers' unions were perceived by many respondents to be more interested in specific welfare matters than in broad educational issues. Perhaps such a shift was to be expected following the collapse of the unified lobby structure in which consensus was reached before recommendations were made to the legislature. After reapportionment an increase in urban influence in the legislature was noted. Several respondents mentioned the greater influence of large urbanized counties in educational policy decisions in Florida. This influence was aided by full-time lobbyists and at times by joint efforts or coalitions. While several respondents noted that the industrial lobby was very powerful, they did not perceive that the business lobby took an active part in most educational issues. One person mentioned the interest of the business community as a significant change in education. This was in reference to the attraction of industry to the state and the need for a strong school system to aid in this attraction.

PAGE 111

104 A United or Divided Lobby The following interview guide item was answered by most respondents: 2. Give your opinion on whether the educational lobby is a united lobby. Explain. Table 4 Perceptions of Unity of Educational Lobby Frequency Percentage Divided Sometimes united United 21 47 21 47 3 6 The fragmentation stage of the Florida educational lobby was still very evident from responses in the above table, and this survey was taken 12 years after the strike. There was, however, a perception of developing unity on particular issues. One respondent, for example, suggested the lobby groups united in efforts to obtain more money for education, but differed about how the money should be distributed. Some respondents mentioned that the split was caused by employer-employee differences. Others

PAGE 112

105 mentioned that different lobby groups emphasized different educational concerns. In Florida the teachers were noted as being fragmented and the two teachers' organizations, the FEA and the FTP, were often seen to vie with one another for membership and for political influence; "one upmanship" was the descriptive term used by a teachers ' organization respondent. It is interesting to note that representatives of teachers' organizations, and/or teachers who responded generally viewed the educational lobby as a fragmented one. Effectiveness of the Pre-1968 Versus the Post-1968 Lobby The third interview guide item was the following: 3. In your opinion, was the educational lobby group prior to 1968 more effective than it has been since 1968? Explain. Some persons did not or said they were unable to comment on the pre-1968 lobby. Responses by frequency were as follows: (a) 23 persons stated that the educational lobby was more effective following 1968; (b) four persons stated that the educational lobby was more effective before 1968.

PAGE 113

106 Responses to this item clearly reflected the perceived greater effectiveness of the Florida educational lobby after 1968. The breakdown of respondents who answered that the post-1968 educational lobby was more effective than the pre-1968 lobby was as follows: nine representatives, seven senators, four civil servants, and three others. Those who replied that the pre-1968 educational lobby was more effective were one civil servant, and three others. The results of this survey taken 12 years after the strike indicated that the fragmentation of the old lobby was not seen to be associated with a weakening of the total lobby effort, but with a greater strength. More people were perceived to become skilled in political influence and more legislators were subjected to stronger or more frequent advocacy on behalf of education. The old unified lobby generally was not perceived to be effective, and was recalled by several respondents as being dominated by administrators or the CSSO, and as being part of the establishment. Since the educational lobby was a divided one, perhaps the total impact of the divided groups was seen to be more effective than the former unified lobby. Perhaps the change in the makeup of the legislature resulting from reapportionment played .

PAGE 114

10 7 some part in the perceived greater effectiveness of the divided lobby. After reapportionment the legislature had a greater urban emphasis than previously and there was a major increase in size of legislative staffs. A few respondents perceived little difference in effectiveness between the old and the new lobby. One reply stated that the educational lobby was not effective either before or after 1968. Another stated that effectiveness would depend upon criteria used, and doubted that Florida's measures of educational effort were any better today than prior to 1968. Rankings of Influence In personal interviews respondents were each given ten cards, each one having a name of the following groups or offices: Department of Education (DOE), Governor's Office, legislative staffs, FEA, FTP, school board association, local groups, superintendents, non-educational lobbies, and parent teacher associations. In telephone interviews the ten groups or offices were stated to the respondents. The respondents were asked the following item on the interview guide:

PAGE 115

108 4. How would you rank the following offices or groups in order of influence on public school legislation? As seen in the following table, some respondents did not answer this item. Others did not rank every one of the ten groups. Therefore, the number ranking each group differed somewhat, varying from 29 responses to 39 responses. Rankings were from one to ten, or less than ten if fewer than ten groups were ranked by any respondent. Table 5 Frequency of Group Influence Ranking • CO 0) -^ CO • 03 (U . M-i to 13 +J I ja ^ W > tJitO < CM < uo Du < o o o-p w H m o U 3 00 EH D O . >:i w p4 pn cn o w Z 1 10 10 7 2 2 2 5 1 2 5 12 7 5 4 3 1 1 1 3 6 3 4 8 5 6 2 1 4 4 8 1 3 3 11 5 4 3 1 2 5 .4 1 4 8 4 4 3 7 1 3 6 1 2 2 6 6 6 8 2 3 7 1 3 4 3 2 6 4 6 2 4 8 6 2 1 3 5 8 2 5 9 1 1 2 2 4 1 9 5 10 3 2 2 8 6 Total Ranking 36 39 36 37 37 37 28 36 31 29 Order of Rank

PAGE 116

109 There was some difference among groups of respondents in regard to top rankings in influence. Representatives ranked local groups first and the Governor's office seventh, whereas senators ranked the Governor's office first and local groups seventh. While legislators were not on the list distributed, they were mentioned as active and influential by many who were interviewed. The very strong potential influence of the non-educational lobby, especially the industrial lobby, was noted by several respondents. While respondents did not perceive this group generally to be interested in education, the industrial lobby was perceived to be very influential regarding legislation concerning taxation. Some respondents stated that the influence of different groups varied from issue to issue reflecting the more pluralistic approach that had developed since fragmentation. Others noted that government itself was the largest lobby, and that the legislature had stepped into a void and was initiating more policy than the DOE. Some members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate emphasized the influence of individual legislators and the influence of local community leaders.

PAGE 117

110 To provide an average ranking for all those groups who were ranked the writer totalled the rankings for each group and divided this total by the number of respondents involved in ranking each group. This average ranking appears in the following table. Table 6 Ranking of Influence Group Sum of Rankings Num.ber Ranking Average Department of Education 112 36 3.1 Governor's Office 142 39 3.6 Legislative staff 151 36 4.2 Florida Education Association 163 37 4.4 Florida Teaching Profession 172 37 4.6 School Board Association 186 37 5.0 Local groups 148 28 5.3 Superintendents (or FASA) 233 36 6.5 Non-educational lobbies 227 31 7.3 Parent Teacher Associations 216 29 7.4

PAGE 118

Ill Advantages or Disadvantages of a Unified Lobby The interviewees were next questioned on the following interview guide item: 5. What do you believe to be the advantages and disadvantages of a unified educational lobby? Of the 31 responses to this item, 20 recorded advantages to a unified educational lobby and 11 saw disadvantages in such a lobby. The following tables give reasons mentioned and frequencies for the two sets of responses. Table 7 Advantages of Unity Advantages Frequency Percentage More influence on legislation Lend more credibility Prevent undercutting Set goals for education Prevent legislators from playing one group against the other 16 1 1 1 80 5 5 5 1 20 5 100

PAGE 119

112 Table 8 Disadvantages of Unity Disadvantages Frequency Percentage Compromise involves too much sacrifice 8 73 Disagreement and competition better 1 9 Teachers would be too strong 1 9 Lose sensitivity to classroom teachers 1 9 11 100 While all respondents did not answer this item, more responses stressed the advantages of a unified educational lobby over the disadvantages, and this was true of every sub-group. There appeared to be general acknowledgement of the greater effectiveness of a unified educational lobby, despite the fact that the fragmented lobby was perceived to be more influential than the old unified lobby.

PAGE 120

113 Originators of Educational Legislation Change The next interview guide item was the following question: 6. From what group or groups do most changes in educational legislation originate? Frequencies of response are noted in Table 9. Table 9 Groups Perceived to Originate Change in Educational Legislation Group Frequency Percentage Legislative staff 22 18 Department of Education 20 17 Teachers' organizations 19 16 Legislature or key legislators 18 15 School Board Association 10 8 Local groups 10 8 Governor 9 8 Superintendents ' groups 7 6 Parent Teacher Association 4 3 119 99

PAGE 121

114 Table 9 reveals that the origination of change in educational legislation is spread over different groups as would be expected in a fragmented lobby. In addition to assisting the legislature in its new function as a locus of accommodation of the different educational interest groups, the legislative staffs themselves were perceived to be most frequently the originators of educational legislation. After the old lobby became fragmented and unable to act as a stable locus of accommodation with influence over the sub-groups it appears that the legislature became active in originating legislation and in using its newly developed staffs to assist in this effort, rather than relying primarily upon the Department of Education and other groups. As has been noted, DePalma observed in 1973 that the new order was still in a state of transition, and that the legislature, the DOE, the CSSO, and the Governor were competing in the initiation of educational policies, but there was no one dominant leader (p. 84) . In 1978 a consulting team coordinated by L. L. Cunningham prepared a report. Improving Education in Florida; A Reassessment , for the Select Joint Committee on Public Schools of the Florida Legislature. In the summary of this report.

PAGE 122

115 (hereafter referred to in this study as the 1978 Consultant' Report) , it was observed that most legislative initiative came from legislators or their educational committees (buttressed by their professional staffs) , and that professional organizations were less effective in this area as were their counterparts in other states (pp. 48-49) . Responses to this item clearly indicated the influence of legislative staffs in initiating educational legislation, and the influence of the legislature itself. The high ranking given to teachers ' organizations in this 1980 survey, however, suggests that they had gained influence in initiating changes in legislation since DePalma's findings in 1973 and since the time of the 1978 Consultant's Report. Differences among respondent groups were noted. Both representatives and civil servants ranked legislative staffs most often, but senators ranked legislators most often, and others ranked teachers' organizations most often.

PAGE 123

116 Political "Know-How " Respondents in the field study were asked the following question: 7. How would you describe the political "know-how" of present educational leaders? Table 10 Groups having Political Know-How Group Frequency Percentage Teachers ' groups 22 36 School Board Association 13 22 Department of Education (or CSSO) 10 16 Professional lobbyists 7 11 Superintendents (or FASA) 6 10 Parent Teacher Association 2 3 Associated Industries 1 2 61 100 The above responses indicated the frequency with which each group was noted as having political know-how but there were also negative comments about some groups. For

PAGE 124

117 example, while the teachers' groups were noted most frequently, one teachers' representative said that teachers' organizations were naive politically, and another noted they were improving but in an infant stage politically. At the other end of the response frequency, parent teacher groups were often seen to be ineffective; and the only person to mention Associated Industries (a group representing powerful business interests in Florida) stated that while the educational lobby was fairly good, it was not in the league with Associated Industries. Some respondents gave only general responses v/ithout referring specifically to any sub-group of the educational lobby. These respondents referred to the Florida educational lobby in such terms as "improving," "quite knowledgeable," "rather good," "getting better," "doing better with longerterm staff," "above average," and "very sophisticated individuals . " One senator observed that teacher influence was greater with members of the House of Representatives but that school board influence was greater with senators. Another respondent indicated that school boards and superintendents had more influence with conservative legislators, but other legislators were more apt to support teachers' organization ideas.

PAGE 125

118 Some comments were expressed about the effectiveness of Tallahassee lobbyists versus those in local areas. While one respondent believed teachers' groups used local people effectively, another stated that many local spokespersons did not understand lobbying and did a poor job of it. Full-time representatives in Tallahassee were generally viewed as very knowledgeable, but this was not the case noted for some teachers' efforts back home or for voluntary rather than professional presentations. One respondent stated, however, that local lobbyists could be very effective when adequately prepared and used in conjunction with state efforts. Full-time spokespersons for boards in large school districts also were perceived to be effective lobbyists. School finance officers were mentioned by several respondents as being very knowledgeable. Continuity and expertise were seen to be important. The relatively high ranking of teachers' associations attested perhaps to the efforts of these organizations over recent years to build more effective political action campaigns to improve their lobby.

PAGE 126

119 Loss of Gain of Influence The interviewees were next asked the following interview guide question: 8. What group or offices have gained or lost influence in the politics of education in the past 10-15 years? Table 11 Groups Gaining in Influence in Past 10-15 Years Group Frequency Percentage Teachers' organizations 25 30 Legislative staffs 18 22 School Board Association 14 17 Superintendents' association 7 8 Governor 6 7 Legislature 6 7 Parent Teacher Association 4 5 Department of Education 3 4 100

PAGE 127

120 Table 12 XI 1 iX U.C Il^C Xil JTClOL. X X aye X CIX o Group Frequency Percentage Department of Education 14 33 Superintendents' association 12 29 School Board Association 6 14 Teachers' organizations 4 10 Parent Teacher Associations 4 10 Governor 1 2 Legislative Staff 1 2 42 100 All the sub-groups of respondents ranked teachers' groups highest on gain in influence. Some respondents observed that teachers' groups lost influence initially after fragmentation of the lobby, but that these groups were now gaining back influence. Other respondents noted that teachers' organizations gained influence in the early 1970' s following collective bargaining legislation. In recent years, however, some respondents saw a stabilization of teachers' organization influence. Some mention was

PAGE 128

121 made of the narrowness of the efforts of teachers' organizations — these efforts were seen to be primarily in the area of salary negotiations. One civil servant suggested, however, that teachers' organizations were now becoming power brokers in political campaigns. Legislative staffs were seen by several respondents to have gained dramatically in influence. One respondent saw an enormous increase in legislative strength including the build-up of legislative staffs, and saw a potential danger of too much bureaucratic development. While the School Board Association was ranked highly on gain, it also had a considerable number of loss responses. Most of these loss responses were observed by members of the House of Representatives. The Governor's Office was seen to gain somewhat in influence, perhaps because of the present Governor's interest in education which was noted by several respondents. Parent teacher groups were not seen to have gained much influence. While several respondents noticed some gain, an equal number noticed a loss. Many did not think this oirganization was, or had been, very influential. The DOE and the superintendents were seen as the significant losers in influence over the past 10-15 years. One senator saw the DOE presently being more involved in

PAGE 129

122 explaining legislation than in introducing new legislation. Another respondent saw an increased DOE influence following the election of the CSSO presently in office. While the DOE was noted in responses to this item as one of the chief losers in educational influence, responses to Item 7 ranked the CSSO high in political savvy and responses to Item 6 ranked the DOE highly as an initiator of legislation. The loss of influence noted might attest then to the central influence of the DOE in the old order, since it still was viewed highly as an initiator of legislation in 1980 and as a useful source of information. Teachers were noted from responses to Item 4 to be next in influence to the DOE, Governor, and legislative staffs, and higher than school boards and superintendents. This ranking indicates a large increase from the days following the walkout when they had little or no perceived influence . DePalma noted in 1973 a better adaptation to the new order by the DOE than by the CSSO at that time, and Observed that the DOE was attempting to build an image of providing accurate and usable information to legislators (pp. 85-86). In the 1978 Consultant's Report legislative staffs were reported to have enabled the legislature to

PAGE 130

123 have decreased dependence on the DOE in the analysis of legislation, although the DOE still provided assistance in this analysis (pp. 49-50). The following table is a composite of gains and losses as reported in the previous two tables; the frequency reported is obtained by subtracting the frequency of losing influence from that of gaining influence for the groups . Table 13 Group Influence Composite Loss or Gain Group Frequency Teachers' organizations 21 Legislative staffs 17 School Board Association 8 Governor 6 Legislature ' 6 Parent Teacher Association 0 Superintendents' association -5 Department of Education -11

PAGE 131

124 Change In Commitment to Education The next interview guide item presented to the interviewees was the following question: 9. How has the commitment of the legislature to education changed during the past 10-15 years? Table 14 Change in Educational Coromitment of Legislature in Past 10-15 Years Reply Frequency Percentage Commitment increased 12 46 Commitment decreased 8 31 No change 6 . 23 26 100 Most legislators who responded to this item indicated that therewas an increased commitment to education by the legislature over the past 10-15 years; other legislators responding reported no change in commitment. Most respondents apart from legislators and civil servants responded that there was less legislature commitment to education than formerly — only two of the latter group perceived a greater legislative commitment than formerly. Respondents

PAGE 132

125 who perceived less commitment spoke of lipservice rather than delivery, more legislative control, and the influence of welfare programs competing for financial resources. Groups Presenting Useful Information To obtain perceptions on this topic the following interview guide question was asked: 10. As a legislator, which persons, offices, or groups present you with the most useful information pertaining to public education? Table 15 Groups Presenting Most Useful Information Relating to Public Education Group Frequency Percentage Legislative staffs 26 31 Department of Education 16 19 Teachers' organizations 12 14 Superintendents 8 9 School Board Association 7 8 Local sources 7 8 Governor's office 5 6 Local finance officers 4 5 85 100

PAGE 133

126 Control of information has been noted in the literature as being a powerful factor in influencing legislatures. Therefore, those perceived to present the most useful information to legislators are likely to have considerable influence. Legislative staffs were the most frequently mentioned source of useful information. Some respondents stated that staffs looked at matters from the perspective of legislators. A representative stated that the legislative staffs knew what representatives were looking for. Other respondents observed that staffs presented the least biased information, that staffs gave both pro and con arguments, or that staffs gave facts not opinions. The DOE was mentioned frequently as a source of useful information. A representative, for example, said he looked to the DOE for information on finance, while a senator indicated that certain officers in the DOE had the most useful information. Some respondents who mentioned the DOE did so with qualifications. A teachers' organization representative suggested that legislators did not fully trust DOE advice, and a civil servant noted that the DOE presented information for legislative staffs to synthesize and put into useable form.

PAGE 134

127 Teachers' organizations, the third most frequent response, were sometimes perceived to present very useful information. However, they, like other interest groups, were expected to "feather their own hats," as one respondent remarked. One senator said that the opinion of teachers "on the battlefront" was important to him. In this field study there appears to be an increase in the usefulness of analyses supplied by teachers' organizations over that reported in the 1978 Consultant's Report. The authors stated that professional organizations "did not appear to provxde analyses as frequently as their counterparts in some other states" (p. 50). Many respondents indicated that a variety of sources were contacted for information so that comparisons could be made. Several mentioned that concepts and opinions were obtained from superintendents and other local persons, but that the facts and details were obtained from legislative staffs. Some legislators indicated that they listened to advice given at the local level to see how proposals would affect their district. The Governor's office and local finance officers were mentioned by fewer respondents than the other groups. The finance officers were mentioned only in connection with the distribution of fvmds.

PAGE 135

128 A More Effective Educational Lobby The final interview guide item asked the interviewees was the following question: 11. How could the present education lobby be made more effective? Table 16 A More Effective Educational Lobby Responses Frequency By unifying (coalition) It is effective enough By establishing more realistic objectives By input from a broader group 22 5 3 2 32 Percentage 69 16 9 6 100 Most respondents indicated that unification would increase the effectiveness of the lobby. One senator was concerned that a unified lobby might be too influential, but another indicated that there were now so many groups that it was unreal. Some comment was made also about too many special interest group lobbies, and that they should show more public interest rather than special interest.

PAGE 136

129 And one representative said that without unity one group could be played off against another. It is interesting to note that the "it is effective enough" responses all came from members of the Florida House of Representatives. Increased political activity was mentioned as an aid to influence by several respondents. One legislator indicated that financial involvement in elections by educational lobby groups heightened legislators' awareness of education. One respondent bluntly stated that more influence would be obtained by delivering more votes. Another respondent suggested that it would be better to educate the public than to pressure individual legislators. Some respondents suggested the need to obtain the support of the business community for educational legislation. Other respondents suggested that more local contact coordinated at state level would enhance influence, that a united approach to legislators rather than power plays would be helpful, that more staff should be allocated and trained for lobbying, that a unified approach be used in order to obtain a balanced educational program, and that collective bargaining was a deterrent to unification.

PAGE 137

130 Summary Respondents to the survey observed three main changes in the political influence of state educational lobby groups in the preceding 10-15 years. These were (a) fragmentation, (b) collective bargaining or unionization, and (c) greater teachers' organization influence. Information from literature as well as from respondents to the survey indicated that teachers' organization influence was at a minimum in the several years following the 1968 strike and that a significant gain in influence took place in recent years. Respondents did not perceive the educational lobby to be united. Responses v/ere equally divided between those who saw the lobby as divided, and those who saw the lobby as sometimes united. The post-1968 educational lobby was seen to be more effective than the earlier unified lobby which was seen to be under the control of administrators or the DOE. Influence rankings were highest for the following groups: (a) the DOE, (b) Governor's office, (c) legislative staffs, (d) teachers' organizations, (e) the School

PAGE 138

131 Board Association, and (f) local groups. Superintendents, non-educational groups, and the Parent Teacher Association ranked lowest in influence. Most respondents perceived an advantage to a unification of the educational lobby in influencing legislation. This observation was made despite acknowledgment that the old unified lobby was less effective than the present fragmented lobby. Groups ranked highest on originating change in educational legislation were (a) legislative staffs, (b) the DOE, (c) teachers' organizations, and (d) the legislature or key legislators. Following fragmentation of the old lobby legislative staffs and key legislators became active in originating legislation. From a low point following the 1968 strike, teachers' organizations had greatly improved their position as perceived originators of legislation change. Leaders ranking highest in political know-how were (a) teachers' groups, (b) the DOE, (c) paid lobbyists, and (d) the school board association. Comments made suggested that professional lobbyists were more effective than unskilled ones, but that local persons could be effective when adequately prepared and organized by the state affiliate.

PAGE 139

132 The groups seen to have gained most in influence in the politics of education in the past 10-15 years were (a) teachers' organizations, (b) legislative staffs, and (c) the School Board Association. The two groups perceived to have lost in influence were (a) the DOE, and (b) the superintendents' association. Nearly one-half of those responding saw an increased commitment of the legislature to education in the past 10-15 years. But a considerable number of respondents saw a decreased commitment. The latter group consisted primarily of respondents who were neither legislators nor civil servants. The three groups perceived to present the most useful information to the legislature about public education were (a) legislative staffs, (b) the DOE, and (c) the teachers' organizations. Here again an improvement is noted in the position of teachers' organizations over their position following the 1968 strike and up to the time of the Consultant's Report of 1978. Legislative staffs have become accepted as perhaps the most important source of information to legislators.

PAGE 140

133 Most respondents to the question about how to make the educational lobby more effective responded that a unified educational lobby would be still more effective. This perception might foreshadow a new coalition of educational interest groups.

PAGE 141

CHAPTER FIVE INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION Propositions and Findings The purpose of this dissertation was to derive from the literature a set of propositions relating to the effects of fragmentation of state educational lobbies, to study the fragmentation of the Florida state educational lobby by means of a field study and an examination of related literature, and to examine the extent to which the findings in Florida were consistent with the derived propositions. The studies of state educational lobbies were found to be primarily descriptive rather than theory building, lannaccone, however, developed a typology which predicted a four-stage change in state educational lobbies over time. These four types were (a) a locally-based disparate structure (Type I) ; (b) a state-wide monolithic structure (Type II) ; (c) a state-wide fragmented structure (Type III) ; and (d) a state-wide syndical structure (Type IV) . In 1973 the Educational Governance Project found lannaccone ' s prediction fulfilled up to Stage III, but that Stage IV had not developed. 134

PAGE 142

135 Three interest group theories were combined by the writer to form an integrated, three mode analysis of state educational interest groups. These theories were (a) sociological theory, (b) exchange theory, and (c) rational theory. Reviews of literature resulted in a group of eight propositions about state educational lobbies. A field study of Florida was carried out to test these propositions. Readings about the fragmentation of the unified lobby in Florida provided additional information to the writer. Of particular use was DePalma's The Governance of Education in Florida prepared in 1973 for the Educational Governance Project, and Improving Education in Florida: A Reassessment , a Consultant's Report prepared for a committee of the Florida Legislature in 1978. White's Florida's Crisis in Public Education: Changing Patterns of Leadership (1975) also provided useful background information. In this section the eight propositions developed in Chapter Three are examined and discussed in relation to the findings of the Florida field study and with reference to readings about the fragmentation of the Florida educational lobby.

PAGE 143

136 Proposition 1 Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby results in an increased role in educational policy-making by the legislature. Responses to several survey items indicated that the legislature had taken more interest in and responsibility over educational legislation in the 10-15 years preceding the field study. In referring to the old lobby, DePalma (1973) noted that "in the 'old order' the legislature depended on the DOE and educational interest groups (especially the FEA) for educational legislation" (p. 83) . Following the fragmentation of the unified lobby there was no longer a locus of accommodation for different interest groups. The legislature was seen by some respondents to have filled the vacuum and to have become the center of accommodation for educational policy-making. Although Item 1 specifically referred to educational groups or lobbies, some respondents mentioned the increased influence of the legislature and the more active role of legislators in educational policy-making. Even though the legislature was not included in the list of 10 educational lobby groups used in Item 4 a few respondents stated that

PAGE 144

137 government itself was the largest lobby. The legislature (or key legislators) v/as ranked frequently as a group originating educational legislation (Table 9) . In Item 8 the legislature was also noted as having gained in influence in the 10-15 years preceding the survey (Table 11) . In response to Item 9 the majority of legislators taking part in the field study concluded that there was now greater commitment to education by the legislature than 10-15 years previously. Other respondents, however, saw less positive commitment by the legislature than previously, even if increased activity in and control over education by the legislature was noted. Data from this field study agreed with DePalma's (1973) observation that there were increased efforts by the legislature in developing its own plans for educational policy-making. The writers of the 1978 Consultant's Report also observed that much legislative initiative came from legislators . Data from this study indicate that the legislature now plays a more active and influential role in policy-making than formerly and thus supports Proposition 1.

PAGE 145

138 Proposition 2 Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby results in an increased influence in educational policymaking by the legislative staffs. The strong influence of legislative staffs in educational policy-making is noted in responses to several survey items. In rankings of influence (Table 5) legislative staffs were ranked highly, next to the DOE and the Governor. In the key area of originating change in educational legislation, legislative staffs were the group most frequently mentioned (Table 9). Legislative staffs were ranked second among groups gaining influence in the politics of education in the 10-15 years prior to the field study (Table 11) . And of particular, significance is the fact that legislative staffs were recognized far more frequently than any other group as the group presenting legislators with the most useful information about public school legislation (Table 15) . In the 1978 Consultant's Report it was noted that legislators viewed legislative staffs as distinct assets in the promotion and enactment of education, and that these staffs enabled the legislature to have decreased

PAGE 146

139 dependence on the DOE in analyzing educational decisionmaking. As was noted in Proposition 1, after the fragmentation of the unified lobby the locus of accommodation moved toward the legislature. In turn, the legislature expanded their legislative staffs to assist in providing the necessary information. Perhaps the more urban legislature which followed reapportionment also was a factor in the increase of legislative staffs, since the DOE may have been associated with more rural oriented legislators. Proposition 2, that fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby results in an increased influence in educational policy-making by the legislative staffs, is supported by data from the field study. Proposition 3 Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby results in a decreased immediate influence in educational policy-making by the constituents of the educational lobby, followed later by an increase in influence. As one respondent noted, power influence was "up for grabs" after the Florida unified lobby fragmented. From survey results applied to Propositions 1 and 2, it

PAGE 147

140 was seen that the legislature and legislative staffs became more influential and active in educational policy matters. Comments from respondents emphasized the fragmentation of the old lobby with a resulting loss in influence in educational decison-making. Some respondents observed that the FEA was the central constituent of the old lobby. This view agreed with DePalma's 1973 finding: The FEA was the focal point for accommodation among school interest groups as the superintendents and school boards' organizations became involved in setting priorities and formulating policy through the FEA. Although these groups disagreed at times over specific policies, they all supported the final legislative program in the "old order" monolithic linkage structure. (p. 18) Many respondents to the survey noted in particular the weakness of teachers' organizations in the years immediately following the strike. As DePalma (1973) noted, "The organizational effectiveness of the FEA was destroyed following the failure of militant action" (p. 58) . Some .respondents noted that not only was the educational lobby fragmented, but that the teachers' organization itself became fragmented following the failure of the strike. The FEA was subjected to internal dissension and fragmentation. A new organizational pattern resulted from these disturbances. In the early 1970 's a split in teacher ranks

PAGE 148

141 occurred. In particular some large urban groups of the FEA wished to affiliate as locals with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and did so. Other teachers formed a new group called the Florida Teaching Profession (FTP) which became affiliated with the NEA. Consequently, the FEA, formerly affiliated with the NEA, became affiliated with the AFT and became known as the FEA United. According to John Hotaling, a representative of the Alachua County Education Association (FEA United) , and one of the interviewees, membership in each group in 1980 was about equal, and a considerable number of teachers, perhaps 30%, were members of neither group. Teachers' organizations were observed by respondents to be at a low point in influence in the years immediately following the strike. Respondents noted, however, a significant gain in influence for teachers' organizations since that time, and this increase in influence will be discussed in the next proposition. • The DOE was observed by respondents to be a very influential group (Table 5), and to be strong in originating legislation (Table 9) . There were indications from the survey answers, however, that the DOE had lost somewhat in influence following the fragmentation of the unified

PAGE 149

142 lobby. Of particular significance is Table 12 which rates the DOE as the group having lost the most influence in the 10-15 years following the strike. DePalma (1973) observed that following the strike the DOE had to develop a much more "sophisticated approach" since the legislators, having strengthened their staffs, no longer were totally dependent upon the DOE for expertise and information (p. 50). The superintendents' associaton, as noted in responses in Table 5, was not ranked highly in political influence, and was observed by many respondents to have lost influence in the 10-15 years prior to the field study (Table 12) . Nevertheless, superintendents were seen by some respondents as useful sources of information (Table 15). It cannot be concluded from the responses, however, that there has been an increase in influence by superintendents or their association. With the introduction of collective bargaining in the early 1970 's superintendents were perceived by some respondents to have lost, rather than gained, influence . The School Board Association (SBA) was ranked more highly in influence and in originating legislation than was the superintendents' group. However, the ranking of the SAB in Table 5 and in Table 9 was less than the ranking

PAGE 150

143 for teachers' organizations. The SBA was ranked second highest, next to teachers' groups, of groups having political know-how -(Table 10) and was ranked by more respondents as having gained, rather than having lost influence in the 10-15 years prior to the survey (Tables 11 and 12) . It is difficult to conclude from the responses that there was a strong increase in influence, but it could be concluded that the SBA was seen by respondents to have made some gain in influence in recent years. A few respondents mentioned a gain in influence for the Parent Teacher Association, while a few noted a loss in influence. Generally, however, the PTA was not seen by respondents to be particularly influential some years ago, or at the time of this survey. Data from the field study do not indicate any overall consistency with Proposition 3. Some groups (notably the legislature, legislative staffs, and teachers) were • perceived to have increased in influence, and some groups (notably the DOE and superintendents) were seen to have lost influence.

PAGE 151

144 Proposition 4 Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby results eventually in an increased influence in educational policy-making by the teachers' organization (s) . Increased influence of teachers' organizations in educational policy-making is indicated by the results of the Florida field study. Responses shown in Table 3 indicate that greater influence of teachers' organizations was the most frequently mentioned change in the 10-15 years preceding the field study. Teachers' organizations were more frequently mentioned (Table 5) as an influence on public school legislation than school boards or superintendents, but less often than governmental actors. As far as originating educational legislation was concerned, teachers' organizations were ranked next in frequency to legislative staffs and the DOE (Table 9) . The leaders of both the FEA United and the FTP were mentioned most freque'ntly as having political know-how (Table 10) . Teachers' organizations were seen to have become more politically aware and active, and were seen to be in competition with each other for political influence.

PAGE 152

145 1 Teachers' organizations were considered by the respondents to have gained most in influence and this ranking was noted by all the sub-groups of respondents (Table 11) . Teachers' organizations were also ranked highly as one of the groups presenting legislators with the most useful information. The data from the Florida field study thus support Proposition 4. Proposition 5 The fragmented educational lobby eventually will be replaced by a new coalition or syndical group, including legislative staff, to accommodate differing demands concerning educational policy. Respondents to the Florida field study indicated that the lobby was perceived to be fragmented. However, an equal number of respondents saw the lobby as sometimes united on specific issues, particularly those dealing with funding (Table 4). While a new stable coalition might be developing, it was not seen in 1980 as having developed.

PAGE 153

146 Respondents viewed the educational lobby groups to be more effective since fragmentation (Item 3) , but they endorsed the view that the present lobby could be made more effective through a new unity (Item 11) . Opposition to unity was noted by only a few respondents, who suggested that the lobby was effective enough, or that unity would dilute the positions of different groups. Data from the survey did not reveal the formation of a new syndical group involving governmental representatives, but there was evidence that unity was developing on specific issues, that a new coalition would be more influential than the present fragmented lobby, and that such a coalition would be viewed positively by most respondents. Proposition 6 Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby is initiated by disturbances or changes which affect the stability of a state teachers' organization. Respondents to Item 1 of the field survey considered the fragmentation of the educational lobby as the most significant change of the past 10-15 years (Table 3) .

PAGE 154

147 Many respondents spoke of events leading to the strike which affected the stability of the teachers' organization. The events mentioned included the following: the emergence of a more militant leadership in the FEA culminating in greater unionization with an emphasis on collective bargaining; a more politically aware and active teachers' group; the adversarial roles adopted by both the Governor and the FEA Executive Secretary; an influx of teachers from northern states; the influence of two rival national teachers' organizations (the AFT and NEA) competing for membership; a reapportioned, full-time legislature; jet travel which aided more frequent meetings in Tallahassee; increased strength of urban interests; and an upgraded legislative administration. A more militant leadership contrasted sharply with the pre-1968 leadership of the old lobby and of the FEA. This older leadership was composed of persons of similar social background and might be characterized as fitting the sociological mode of organization. For example, the CSSO was a past-president of the FEA; the executive secretary of the superintendents' association had his office in the FEA building; and not only teachers were members of the FEA but membership included principals, superintendents and DOE employees (DePalma, 1973, p. 17).

PAGE 155

148 Militant leadership began to be noted in 1965 when a "young, aggressive" board of directors called in the NEA to investigate Florida's political atmosphere as a hindrance to public school progress. According to White (1975) , some observers saw this militance as a reflection of the politics of the 1960's (p. 20). One respondent mentioned that the successful strike of New York City teachers in the early 1960 's provided an example of what could be accomplished through militancy. After this strike by an AFT affiliate it was noted that the NEA began to adopt a more militant posture in collective bargaining. Rising militancy was noted by some respondents to have created stress both within the FEA and the educational lobby. For example, superintendents left the FEA, and school boards were alienated by the militance of the FEA. Ed Henderson, the Executive Director of the FEA, resigned in 1967, and Phil Constans, Jr. was appointed to this position. Constans was noted by some respondents to be the central figure in the FEA strike action. He was a past president of the FEA and before his appointment was a lobbyist for that organization. Several respondents mentioned a large influx of teachers from the north as causing changes in the FEA.

PAGE 156

149 White (1975) observed that "Florida's teacher training institutions could provide only 1,000 of the 6,000 teachers needed annually to replenish a teaching corps that grew from nearly 30,000 to 55,000 teachers between 1959 and 1965" (p. 20) . Teachers from the north were more likely to have belonged to more militant teachers' groups and to have lived in communities more used to union efforts than was the case in Florida. All of these changes and environmental disturbances had a profound effect upon the FEA. And as we have seen, the FEA was the locus of accommodation for interest groups in the old lobby, and therefore, any disturbance in the teachers' organization affected the stability of the educational lobby. Some respondents observed that the "disastrous" strike of 1968 was but the final step in the fragmentation of the educational lobby. Data from the Florida study support the proposition that fragmentation of the unified lobby was initiated by disturbances .which affected the stability of a state teachers' organization.

PAGE 157

150 Proposition 7 A state teachers' organization is moved from a sociological mode of organization toward a rational one, and may pass through a relatively unstable exchange phase, when the membership accepts new values and new leadership in exchange for the expectation of better conditions. Some respondents to the survey noted a dramatic change in tactics by the FEA following a change in leadership. The change in tactics noted involved a much more radical approach than the professional approach which characterized the FEA prior to the change in leadership. Phil Constans, Jr., who became Executive Secretary of the FEA in 1967, was mentioned by several respondents as a leader who emphasized an adversarial approach rather than the quieter approach favored by his predecessors. The older FEA was part of what was termed by some respondents a "tea and cookie" organization, or an "old boy's club." Other respondents indicated that the change toward more militant values was underway before the leadership change, and that this change was associated with other events including an influx of teachers from the north, more male teachers, greater urbanization, greater urban influence, and a

PAGE 158

151 teachers' militancy which was spreading throughout the country. One respondent stated that teachers from 1968 on realized that they needed a negotiation process to express their views because they no longer had the main voice in the educational lobby. Although respondents did not use the terms sociological, exchange, or rational to describe the teachers' organization, their comments can be fitted into these categories. The sociological mode of organization emphasized group consensus rather than conflict, and did not emphasize the role of leadership in terms of producing organizational change. This was characteristic of the old lobby which was termed the "old boy's club" by a respondent. Other respondents mentioned the low key approach used by FEA leaders in the 1960 's which involved consensus rather than confrontation. New leadership in the FEA produced rapid change, and as one respondent observed, the membership was sold a new approach to obtain better conditions for teachers and education. Respondents familiar with the FEA in 1967 spoke of the adversarial position adopted by Constans, his strong influence over teachers, and the shift in teachers' values. Constans' effect upon teachers was described by a colleague

PAGE 159

152 as follows: "He talks the language of teachers. They can hear their feelings vibrate when he speaks ("Dr. Constans, The Teachers: A Resonance/' 1968, p. 3). Constans' own feelings and commitment are revealed in a letter he wrote in 1973 five years after the strike: I would be lying if I didn't admit that sometimes I miss very much being in the center of things. You can never completely set aside the fact that once you committed your being to a cause in which you fully believed. (p. 7) Constans represented the charismatic leader noted in the exchange theory. He was a leader fully committed to the cause of reformulating the FEA to attain significant benefits for the membership and for education. This effort changed the traditional approach of the FEA and involved confrontation with authorities. In a paper presented in 1972 Urban analyzed the values and ideology involved in the Florida teachers ' strike. He described the "walkout ideology" as composed of two related sets of arguments. The first set was related to the traditional ideal of teachers — "for the sake of the children." FEA advertisements stressed this argument, and every teacher interviewed by Urban reflected this argument. Urban noted, however, that after the walkout a second set of arguments was emphasized by FEA leadership. This group

PAGE 160

153 of arguments concerned the composition of a professional standards boards, a statute for collective bargaining between teachers and county school boards, and an education bill to provide funds for teachers and for property tax relief (pp. 2-3). This second set of argiaments involved political and economic power. This power would be characteristic of a rational mode of organization. Economic power was difficult to attain. At the time of the walkout taxes from business and industry in Florida amounted to 7.87% of total taxes compared to a southeastern state average of 15.69% and a national average of 18.7%. After the teachers' resignations were turned in, a powerful group of business interests in Florida organized as Associated Industries used its influence to urge school boards to accept the teachers' resignations, and to fight the unionist threat to the status quo (Urban, 1972, pp. 4-9) . Yet teachers shied away from acceptance of help from organized labor in a power struggle. Urban suggested that teachers of middle class background were generally politically conservative and therefore slow to embrace political activity or collective bargaining, and that it was only the argument "for the sake of the children" that persuaded

PAGE 161

154 teachers to act collectively (pp. 14-15) . This argument was documented also by Cass (1968) who concluded that teachers acted "out of a strong personal commitment to the improvement of education in Florida" (p. 79) . Constans was seen to be the center of the effort to use ideology in fashioning a better educational system and in improving the political and economic influence of the FEA. The efforts to obtain collective bargaining rights and influence over a professional standards board, if successful, would have given the FEA power to offer its members selective benefits, and/or the power of coercion over its membership. These benefits were associated with the rational (economic) theory, and if attained would have provided stability to the FEA and would have helped to prevent its fragmentation. As we have seen, forces within the FEA, striving for better conditions for teachers and education, suffered a setback when the strike failed and the FEA fragmented. Since the years immediately following the strike, however, the enactment of collective bargaining procedures in the early 1970 's and strong political action efforts by the teachers' organizatons have restored and increased the influence of teachers' organizations (Proposition 4).

PAGE 162

155 While the rational mode of organization is not fully attained, collective bargaining and political action efforts are associated with a rational emphasis. Data from the Florida field study and evidence from readings thus support Proposition 7. Proposition 8 The stability of a teachers' organization (or interest group) is influenced by its ability to provide selective incentives to, or its ability to coerce, its meit±)ers. Selective incentives or benefits are defined as those that can be restricted to the members of an organization. The ability to coerce members would be enhanced by a closed shop arrangement. The ability of the Florida teachers' organizations to provide selective incentives to their members and/or the ability of these organizations to coerce their members, depends in part on the influence of these organizations in educational policy-making. Several survey items dealt with this influence. In Table 5 teaches' organizations were ranked next in influence to the DOE, Governor, and legislative staffs.

PAGE 163

156 In Table 9 teachers' organizations were ranked next to legislative staffs and the DOE as groups perceived to originate change in educational legislation. In Table 10 leaders of teachers' organizations were perceived to have the most political know-how of the lobby group leaders mentioned. Teachers' organizations were perceived (Table 11) to be the groups which had gained most influence in the politics of education in the 10-15 years prior to the survey. In Table 15 teachers' organizations were ranked third in groups perceived to provide legislators with the most useful information pertaining to public education. The data in these tables indicated considerable influence for teachers' organizations. The gain in influence noted and the political know-how observed reflect the efforts of these organizations in the past 10-15 years in political action programs. Clearly teachers' organizations were seen to have a higher profile in political influence by legislators and others interviewed than was the case earlier. As has been noted previously, during the strike the FEA leadership pressed for collective bargaining legislation and for influence over a professional standards board. If these efforts had been successful the FEA would have been

PAGE 164

157 able to offer its members selective economic benefits, and/or would have had some ability to coerce its members. As was seen from the literature a combined legislative and industrial power thrust helped to defeat these FEA efforts. This organized reaction to restore stability was an example of the "wave" concept suggested by Truman. Selective incentives of an ideological and charismatic nature provided by the leadership of the FEA at the time of the strike did not result in the goals sought, and the FEA itself became subjected to pressures which produced instability and caused its fragmentation. The strike resulted in much negativeness and bitterness towards teachers by many citizens, and bitterness also among teachers. Within the FEA strong feelings were aroused; for' example, in a letter written in 1973 Constans remembered vividly his dismissal by the FEA Executive Committee in February, 1969 (Constans, 1973, p. 6). Information obtained from respondents and from readings indicated that the stability of the FEA was shaken following the defeat of the 1968 strike. Since then two state teachers' groups, FEA United and FTP, have attempted to attain stability for their organizations. Despite

PAGE 165

158 collective bargaining procedures, however, the teachers' organizations do not yet appear to have the ability to provide strong selective economic incentives to their members or the ability to coerce their members. Salaries negotiated for teachers in Florida are collective (not selective) benefits since all teachers employed by a school board receive them whether or not they are members of a teachers' organization. Teachers' organizations have little or no legal basis for coercion of their members. There is no closed shop and teachers do not have to pay dues to an organization. Some selective incentives or benefits may exist in terms of insurance, group meetings, and ideological or political expression, but it is questionable that long term organizational stability is likely to occur without selective economic benefits resulting from collective bargaining. While data from the survey support an increased influence for teachers' organizations, a review of collective bargaining and membership provisions in law does not support the ability of teachers' organizations to provide selective incentives through collective bargaining to its members, or the ability to coerce its members. Data then are not

PAGE 166

159 clear as to the stability of teachers ' organizations at present. Some respondents, however, indicated that a change might come about in the next few years in the form of a new coalition.

PAGE 167

CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Summary In the past 15 years fragmentation of state educational lobbies has been associated with changes in state educational policy-making. The study of educational lobbies is a relatively new area and greater understanding about these changes would be helpful to educators and others involved with state policy-making for public school education. A review of studies about state educational interest groups did not produce much in the way of theory development. Perhaps the most significant conceptual statement about state educational interest groups was contributed by lannaccone (1967) who derived a typology of four types to describe the changes taking place in state educational policy-making structures. lannaccone predicted that a unified state educational lobby would become a fragmented lobby, and predicted that this fragmented type would be 160

PAGE 168

161 replaced by another type of coalition involving government actors. The monopolistic and stable characteristics of the unified lobby were to be repeated in a syndical structure following the unstable and competitive phase of the fragmented lobby. Because a concern of this study was the effects of the fragmentation of state educational lobbies, conclusions from earlier studies were noted. Bailey et al (1962) concluded that cohesion rather than fragmentation would result in much greater success for educational interest groups in the legislative arena. Masters et al (1964) found that cohesion and the avoidance of conflict was believed by educators to be more helpful for education than open conflict and fragmentation. lannaccone ' s analyses of studies found data inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of a unified lobby versus a fragmented lobby. Usdan et al (1969) found that the unified lobbies were breaking down and that legislatures might take on greater responsibility for policy formulation. These authors noted that while the FEA in Florida was the most influential private group in policy-making, it was alienating its allies because of teacher militancy. Campbell and Mazzoni (1976) , in the Educational Governance Project,

PAGE 169

162 found that while fragmentation was a prevailing pattern the educational lobby group and teachers' associations ranked high in policy-making. In addition to the above studies, the writer also reviewed literature from political science and organizational fields to derive propositions for this study. Apparently educational schoJ.ars studying state educational policy-making rarely made reference to interest group studies by political scientists. From political science literature a typology was developed involving three theories about interest groups, and this typology was used as a conceptual framework for this study. Sociological theory emphasized the group, collective benefits, and environmental disturbances; exchange theory emphasized charismatic leadership and ideological incentives; and rational theory emphasized the individual's self-interest and selective economic benefits. The writer suggested that there was movement from the sociological, through the exchange, to the rational mode of organization. In addition, a review of studies about the roles of the legislature and legislative staffs added insight regarding changes in state policy-making. Longer term, larger staffed legislatures were seen to become

PAGE 170

163 initiators of educational policy, and legislative staffs were observed to be powerful new influences. Eight propositions about the effects of fragmentation on state educational lobbies were derived from the literature. As Lindblom (1968) observed, even a "loosely organized set of interlocking generalizations or principles about social organization — or more specifically, about politico-economic organizations — is of enormous help to policy analysis" (p. 23). A field study of Florida involving a survey of 45 key persons and a study of written materials about fragmentation of the Florida lobby was undertaken. The results of this study were examined to determine to what extent the results were consistent with the propositions derived from the literature. Data from the field study revealed a perception of three main changes in the political influence of state educational lobby groups in the past 10-15 years. They were (a) fragmentation of the lobby, (b) collective bargaining or unionization, and (c) greater teachers' organization influence. The lobby was perceived to be sometimes united on specific issues, and the post-1968 lobby in general was judged to be much more effective than the old united lobby. Nevertheless, respondents suggested that greater influence would be attained if the educational lobby groups again became united.

PAGE 171

164 Data were also obtained on other dimensions. The top rankings in influence on public school legislation were close to government — the DOE, the Governor, and legislative staffs. Next in ranking were teachers' organizations. The four groups that ranked much higher than others in originating change in legislation were legislative staffs, the DOE, teachers' organizations, and the legislature. Highest rankings for political know-how were given to teachers' organizations, the school board association, the DOE, and full-time lobbyists. Teachers' organizations and legislative staffs were ranked far ahead of all other groups in gain of influence. Legislative staffs were ranked far ahead of all other groups in presenting useful information to legislators; next were the DOE and teachers' organizations. The three groups most prominent in all of these rankings were (a) the DOE, (b) legislative staffs, and (c) teachers' organizations. Conclusions Concerning the Propositions The eight propositions developed from the literature were examined in light of the field study and an examination of related literature. Findings of this study supported the propositions which follow.

PAGE 172

165 1. Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby is accompanied by an increased role in educational policy-making by the legislature. Data indicate that legislatures have become more full-time, more active, and more influential in educational decision-making . 2. Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby is accompanied by an increased influence in educational policy-making by the legislative staffs. Legislative staffs were seen by respondents to have gained much influence in educational policy-making. They were ranked high in influence on public school legislation and in originating change in legislation, and were ranked far ahead of other groups in presenting useful information to legislators. The review of literature also attests to the growing influence of legislative staffs. 4. Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby eventually is followed by an increased influence in educational policy-making by the teachers' organization (s) . Teachers' organizations were observed to have gained much influence in Florida since the years immediately following fragmentation (and the strike) . This finding is in accord with findings from the EGP study.

PAGE 173

166 6. Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby is initiated by disturbances which affect the stability of a state teachers' organization. Many disturbances were mentioned by respondents, and these disturbances were seen to affect the stability of the teachers' organization and the unity of the educational lobby. 7. A state teachers' organization is moved from a sociological mode of organization toward a rational one, and may pass through a relatively unstable exchange phase, when the membership accepts new values and new leadership in exchange for the expectation of better conditions. The many disturbances noted helped to bring about a change in leadership of the FEA. New leadership was observed to be more in tune with the growing dissatisfaction and militancy within the FEA ranks. The new leadership had a vision of a greater FEA influence involving economic and political power; such power being characteristic of a rational model of organization.

PAGE 174

167 Evidence did not support, or only partly supported, the following propositions. 3. Fragmentation of a unified state educational lobby is accompanied by a decreased immediate influence in educational policy-making by the constituents of the educational lobby, followed later by an increase in influence. Evidence only partly supported this proposition. As was noted previously there was a different application of influence across the different constituents of the lobby. For example, teachers' groups eventually gained in influence, but superintendents lost in influence. 5. The fragmented educational lobby eventually will be replaced by a new coalition or syndical group, including legislative staff, to accommodate differing demands concerning educational policy. Evidence did not support this proposition, but a growing unity on specific issues was noted. Whether or not a new coalition will formally develop is not clear, but if the past pattern of alternating fragmentation of lobby groups with a coalition of lobby groups

PAGE 175

168 continues then a new coalition may likely develop. There was general agreement that if lobby groups united, the result would be a significant gain in influence for the educational lobby. 8. The stability of a teachers' organization (or interest group) is influenced by its ability to provide selective incentives to, or its ability to coerce, its members. The ability of a teachers ' organization to provide selective incentives to, or to coerce its membership, depends upon its power and influence. While teachers' organizations were seen to gain much in influence by respondents in the field study, these organizations did not have much power of coercion over members, nor great ability to provide selective economic benefits to the members. Data then were inconclusive regarding this proposition.

PAGE 176

169 Implications Why do some groups gain in influence and why do others fail to gain in influence after fragmentation of a unified state lobby group? Practitioners can improve their understanding about changes in state educational lobby groups by being aware of any typology or set of propositions which help to describe and explain the changes in power and influence of lobby groups. Individuals, leaders, and the society or organization in which they live are inextricably related. Pareto (1968) offered insight into this relationship by stating: It was not the book by Marx which has created the socialists; it is the socialists who have made Marx's book famous. It was not the works of Voltaire which. . .produced scepticism; it was that scepticism which gave the writings of Voltaire their reputation. (p. 100) The argument about whether the environment or the individual is more important to organizational change cannot be resolved simply by ignoring one or the other. As Silverman (1976) observed, both a macro approach emphasizing a sociological system and consensus, and a micro approach involving the examination of self-interested individuals and conflict, are important in analyzing

PAGE 177

170 organizations (pp. 39-41) . At particular times the influence of individuals and leaders is preeminent, at other times group values and group interaction appear to be preeminent. Since it is individuals who react to their environment, the individual's thinking and feeling must be considered. There is some truth in the statement that man makes organization (or society) , as well as the^ statement that organization (or society) makes man. An important implication of this study is the usefulness of political science theory applied to state educational lobbies. A typology for the analysis of interest groups was developed by integrating three groups of political science theory. Of particular usefulness was the application of this typology to the teachers' organization in Florida. The writer suggested that prior to the rise of militancy in the FEA a sociological model of organization characterized the FEA and the unified lobby. In the sociological model consensus was emphasized, and the role of the environment was stressed rather than the role of leaders or individuals. At the time of the strike new leadership played a major role. A charismatic leader committed to a cause is a characteristic of the exchange model of organization.

PAGE 178

171 In this approach changes in organizational structure are explained in terms of an exchange between members and the leader who gives promise of certain benefits. In Florida there was a change in norms from the stable, consensus emphasis of the old lobby, to an emphasis on open confrontation to obtain goals. A greater emphasis on economic and political power is characteristic of the rational model of organization. Organizational stability is explained in terms of the organization's ability to offer its members selective benefits, or its ability to coerce its members. Legislators and educational leaders then should be aware of the implication that selective benefits may be important for the stability of large interest groups such as teachers' organizations. From this study it was seen that the educational lobby was perceived to have gained in influence in the 10-15 years after fragmentation. While this is an important implication it also should be noted that respondent data indicated that a new unification of groups would produce greater influence for the educational lobby. The changes in influence may reflect the "wave" reaction suggested by Truman (1971) . The greater influence noted for educational lobby groups may be explained in part by

PAGE 179

172 the vigorous political action campaigns adopted by teachers' organizations sometime after the breakup of the old lobby. Since there are now two state teachers' organizations in Florida competing for political influence, legislators and civil servants would probably be lobbied by both groups, and they would thus perceive a higher political profile for these organizations. A finding of this study is that teachers' organizations have appeared to increase in influence after fragmentation of the educational lobby. It appears, however, that the activity and influence of teachers' groups in Florida have not been translated into significant salary increases for teachers. A recent NBA publication. Rankings of the States, 1980 , ranked Florida 47 out of 50 states and the District of Columbia in percent increase in average salaries of teachers in the ten years from 1969-70 to 1979-80, and ranked Florida 49th in percent increase in average salaries of public school teachers in the school years 1979-80, as compared with 1978-79 (p. 20). It is also interesting to note that the 1978 Consultant's Report stated that persons most directly affected by educational legislation often were not involved in its preparation (pp. 51-53) . One implication of these data is

PAGE 180

173 that individuals or groups other than teachers ' organizations must have a strong influence upon the legislature, and more research might be done on this topic. The favorable position of business interests in Florida was noted at the time of the 1968 strike. And the continued favorable position of business interests in Florida has been advertised in a recent article in Fortune magazine. One businessman is quoted as saying that when he moved to Florida, lower taxes were like an extra 10% to 15% income increase. Business taxes in Florida were reported to be among the lowest in the nation and still falling (Minter, 1981, pp. 17-18). lannaccone's typology applied to Florida indicates that a syndical coalition will form, following the fragmented type of structure which prevails at present. If there is to be a new coalition, however, the two teachers' organizations in Florida will have to settle their differences. Also, in such a new coalition some legislative agency having the trust of the legislature would have to be involved. Legislative staffs, therefore, probably would be part of any syndical group. Respondents noted competition between the two teachers' organizations in Florida. While unity on some

PAGE 181

174 issues was noted, disagreement (one respondent went so far as to say "internecine warfare") on other issues was mentioned. Without a unified teaching profession resources will continue to be expended in competitive efforts, and such efforts to some degree will promote instability in teachers' organizations. Most respondents, including teachers' organization respondents, suggested that much greater influence would be achieved through unity. There are, however, organizational loyalties and ideological difficulties which hamper the formation of a unified teaching profession in Florida. A further implication from this study is that communication and understanding between legislators and other groups could be improved. This is particularly important because of the power of the legislature, and the fact that it is the center of accommodation for educational policy-making. The majority of legislators taking part in the study concluded that there was greater legislative commitment to education than was the case 10-15 years earlier, but others taking part in the study perceived less positive commitment by the legislature than earlier, although the legislature was perceived to have increased activity in and control over education.

PAGE 182

175 While the DOE was perceived to rank highly in influence on public school legislation, in originating legislation, in political know-how, and as a presenter of useful information, the DOE was perceived also to be the major loser in influence in the politics of education over the 10-15 years prior to the survey. The writer suggests that these data confirm the great influence of the DOE in the old lobby, since despite a significant loss in influence, it still is mentioned as a very strong force in educational policy-making at the present time. Suggestions for Future Research Theories from the political science field of study could prove to be a new thrust in adding to knowledge about state educational lobby groups. In this dissertation a typology integrating components of three theories from political science was fashioned to examine the fragmentation of the Florida educational lobby. Further case studies using this approach could add much to the understanding of change in state educational lobbies. Particular issues and particular lobby groups could be examined, involving the effects of the environment.

PAGE 183

176 i organizational norms, leadership, and the individual member's self-interested calculations. Within the FEA, for example, an exchange phase was noted featuring new and dedicated leadership espousing new norms; and the FEA changed into a militant organization. Case studies could determine the degree to which stability was obtained by an organization's ability to provide selective incentives to its membership, or by an organization's ability to coerce its membership. Other studies might single out the role of ideological and sociological selective benefits in the development of educational lobby groups. A special area of research is the role and influence of teachers' organizations in educational decision-making. Griffiths (1979) commented upon the inability of educational theory to explain many educational functions, and noted that theories ignored the existence of teachers' organizations (p. 264). Since teachers' organizations were central componentsin unified educational lobbies, research efforts should examine the role and trends of teachers ' organizations in educational politics. An examination of the role of teachers' organizations before and after the advent of collective bargaining would

PAGE 184

177 be helpful in understanding power relationships. A number of questions might also be addressed. How do environmental factors and group norms affect collective bargaining? In the development and growth of teachers' organizations, is there a distinct change phase emphasizing the role of a charismatic leader? Why are some teachers' organizations stronger and more effective than others? Of what significance is the ability to provide selective economic benefits to members? Are there examples of some form of closed shop, and if so, are such organizations more influential and more stable than others? Is there a peak in influence followed by a decline? A study of state lobby structures would reveal whether or not there are signs of a new syndical structure being developed, and indicate what, if any, changes now generally characterize the structure of state educational lobby groups. A few questions that might be examined follow. Is there evidence that predictions concerning a new unity of state educational lobby groups are likely to come about? Do changing structures tend to repeat themselves? Will a new unity provide more influence for the educational lobby? How may such a new coalition develop at the state level when collective bargaining takes place at the local level between two constituent organizations?

PAGE 185

178 Group influence on particular issues could be determined through research efforts. For example, it was noted that teachers' organizations gained much influence in Florida, yet they were not able to gain significantly in salary comparisons with other states. In addition, the influence of business interests on educational policy-making could be investigated. The legislature itself was seen to become a policy actor rather than only a referee of interests. The ideology of legislators as an influence on educational policy would be an area of research which could provide important information to students of, and participants in, the educational policymaking process. Since legislative staffs have become very influential, further research could help determine the extent to which these staffs have developed into bureaucracies and the effect of this development on education.

PAGE 186

APPENDIX A LISTING OF INTERVIEWEES Representatives Name Occupation Year Elected Committee Member or Function Bell, Samuel P. Attorney 1974 K-12 Education Brown, Hyatt Insurance 1972 Speaker Conway, William Contractor 1966 Higher Education Crotty, Richard Sales 1978 Higher Education Davis, Helen G. Legislator 1974 Vice-chairman K-12 Education Gardner, W. (Bud) Engineer 1978 K-12 Education Hall, Leonard J. Teacher 1978 K-12 Education Hawkins, Mary Ellen Public Relations 1974 K-12 Education Hieber, George Realtor 1974 K-12 Education Jennings, Toni Construction Real Estate 1976 Finance & Taxation Jones, C. Fred Farmer 1970 Appropriations Martin, Sidney Farmer 1974 Appropriations Mica, John Management Consultant 1976 Appropriations Mills, Jon Attorney 1978 Higher Education Robinson, Grover Real Estate 1972 Appropriations Sadowski, William Attorney 1976 K-12 Education Weinstock, Eleanor Artist 1978 K-12 Education 179

PAGE 187

180 Senators Year Elected Committee Member or Function Chamber 1 in, Don Teacher 1976 Education Childers, Donnell Insurance 1974 Education Frank, Pat Legislator 1978 Education Gordon, Jack Banker 1972 Chairman Ways and Means Lewis, Philip Real Estate 1970 President of Senate Maxwell, Clark Consultant 1970 Education MacKay, Kenneth Attorney 1974 Chairman, Education Peterson, Curtis Nurseryman 1972 Education Steinberg, Paul Attorney 1978 Education Note: Several of the above persons served also in the House of Representatives at one time: Frank, 1976-78; MacKay, 1968-74; and Steinberg, 1972-78. Civil Servants Crawford, Douglas Lycan, Dave Myers, Herman Orr, Wally Re id, Charles Staff Director, House K-12 Education Committee Staff member. House Education Appropriations Sub-committee Staff Director, Senate Education Committee Civil servant, former FEA President Governor's Office

PAGE 188

181 Andrews, William Alonzo, Braulio Collins, LeRoy Darden , Woodrov; Dykes, John Faxon, Donna Geiger, James Hagman, Dexter Hotaling, John Magruder , Don Schultz, Fred Sharp, Bert Turlington, Ralph Tobias, Arlene Others former member. House of Representatives NEA President in 1968, and former FEA President former Governor of Florida Staff Officer, Superintendents' Association Professor, Santa Fe Community College Regional Staff Officer, FEA United First Vice-President, FEA United FEA President, 1968 Executive Director, Alachua County Education Association Staff Officer, School Board Association former member. House of Representatives University professor, former Dean of School of Education, University of Florida Florida Commissioner of Education Executive Secretary, FTP

PAGE 189

APPENDIX B INTERVIEW GUIDE 1. Changes have taken place in the political influence of state education groups or lobbies in the past 10-15 years. Describe briefly significant changes as you perceive them. 2. Give your opinion on whether the educational lobby is a united lobby. Explain. 3. In your opinion, was the educational lobby group prior to 1968 more effective than it has been since 1968. Explain. 4. How would you rank the following offices or groups in order of influence on public school legislation? Department of Education Florida Education Association Florida Teaching Profession Governor's Office Legislative staff Local groups Non-educational lobbies Parent Teacher Associations School Board Association Superintendents (or FSA) 182

PAGE 190

183 I 5. What do you believe to be the advantages and disadvantages of a unified educational lobby? 6. From what group or groups do most changes in educational legislation originate? 7. Hov7 would you describe the political "know-how" of present educational leaders? 8. What group or offices have gained or lost influence in the politics of education in the past 10-15 years? 9. How has the commitment of the legislature to education changed during the past 10-15 years? 10. As a legislator, which persons, offices, or groups present you with the most useful information pertaining to public education? 11. How could the present education lobby be made more effective?

PAGE 191

REFERENCES Abrams, A. J. The legislative administrator. Public Administration Review , 1975, 35(5), 497-500. Aufderheide, J. A. Educational interest groups and the state legislature. In R. F. Campbell & T. L. Mazzoni, Jr State policy making for the public schools . Berkeley, California: McCutchan, 1975. Baaklini, A. I. Legislative staffing patterns in developing countries. In J. J. Heaphey & A. P. Balutis (Eds.), Legislative staffing; A comparative perspective . New York: VJiley & Sons, 1975. Bailey, S. K., Frost, R. T., Marsh, P. E., & Wood, R. C. Schoolmen and politics — a study of state aid to education in the northeast . Syracuse: University Press, 1962. Balutis, A. P. Legislative staffing: a review of current trends. In J. J. Heaphey & A. P. Balutis (Eds.), Legislative staffing: A comparative perspective . New York: Wiley & Sons, 1975a. Balutis, A. P. Legislative staffing: A view from the states. In J. J. Heaphey & A. P. Balutis (Eds.), Legislative staffing: A comparative perspective . New York: Wiley & Sons, 1975b. Balutis, A. P. Professional staffing in the New York state legislature: An exploratory study (Doctoral dissertation State University of New York at Albany, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1973, 3£, 3481A. (University Microfilms No. 73-28, 827) Benne, K. D. , & Birnbaum, M. Principles of changing. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, & R. Chin, T he planning of change . Nev; York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Benne, K. D. , & Sheats, P. Functional roles of group members. The Journal of Social Issues , 1948, 4(2), 41-50. ~~ 184

PAGE 192

185 Berry, J. M. On the origins of public interest groups: A test of two theories. Polity , 1978, 10(3), 379-397. Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. Formal organizations ; A comparative approach . San Francisco: Chandler, 1962. Browne, W. P. Organizational maintenance: The internal operation of interest groups. Public Administration Review , 1977, 37(1), 48-56. Burlingame, M., & Geske, T. G. State politics and education: An examination of selected multiple-state case studies. Educational Administration Quarterly , 1979, 15(2), 50-75. Campbell, R. F., Cunningham, L. L. , & McPhee, R. The organization and control of American schools . Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1965. Campbell, R. F., & Mazzoni, T. L. State policy making for the public schools . Berkeley, California: McCutchan, 1976. Cass, J. Politics and education in the sunshine state — the Florida story. Saturday Review , April 1968, pp. 63-65, 76-79. Clark, P. B., & Wilson, J. Q. Incentive systems: A theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quart erly, 1961, 6 (2), 129-166^ ~~ Constans, P., Jr. Phil Constans, Jr.: The man behind the walkout remembers. Gainesville Sun, February 18, 1973. Cunningham, L. L. (Coordinator, Consultant Team) . Improving education in Florida: A reassessment . Summary of Consultant's Report prepared for Select Joint Committee on Public Schools of the Florida Legislature. Tallahassee: Office of Secretary of Senate, February 1978. Dahl, R. A. A preface to democratic theory . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Dah.T , R. A. Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city . New Haven, Conn.: Yale University, 1961.

PAGE 193

186 Dear love, J. T he politics of policy in local government . London: Cambridge University Press, 1973. DePalma, F. The governance of education in Florida . Columbus : Educational Governance Project, Ohio State Univer s i ty , 1973. Dexter, L. A. Elite and specialized interviewing . Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University Press, 1970. Dr. Constans, the teachers: A resonance. St. Petersburg Times , February 22, 1968. Easton, D. The function of formal education in a political system. The School Review , 1957, 6_5 (3), 304-316. Fox, D. J. The research process in education . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Fuhrman, S. The politics and process of school finance reform. Journal of Education Finance , 1978, 158-178. Fuhrman, S. School finance reform in the 1980 's. Educational Leadership , 1980, 38(2), 122-124. Gar son, G. D. Group theories of politics . Beverley,^ Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1978. Greenfield, T. B. Theory about organization: A new perspective and its implication for schools. In V. Houghton, R. McHugh, & C, Morgan (Eds.), Management in education; The management o f organizations and individuals . London: Open University Press, 1975. Greenwald, C. S. Group power: Lobbying and public policy . New York: Praeger Publishing, 1977. , * Griffiths, D. E. Currents in collective analysis: Concluding views on the research seminar. In G. L. Immegart & W. L. Boyd (Eds.), Problem-finding in educational administration . Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1979. Heaphey, J. J., & Balutis, A. P. Legislative staffing; a comparative perspective . New York: Wiley & Sons, 1975.

PAGE 194

187 Hunter, F. Community power structure . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953. Hunter, F. Top leadership, USA . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959. lannaccone, L. Politics in education . New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, 1957. Kahn, R. L., & Cannell, C. F. The dynamics of interviewing . New York: Wiley & Sons, 1958. Ker linger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973. Kimbrough, R. Lessons from the survival and death of regional educational organizations. Planning and Changing, 1979, 10(1), 37-41. Kimbrough, R. , Wattenbarger , J., & Alexander, K. Government and education. In M. J. Daver (Ed.), Florida's politics and governmen t. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1981. Knezevich, S. J. Administration of public education . New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Landau, M. Political theory and political science . New York: The Macmillan Co., 1972. Lindblom, C. E. The policy making process . Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Macmahon, A. Congressional oversight of administration: The power of the purse. Political Science Quarterly , 1943, 58, 161-190. Mahood, H. R. Pressure groups: A threat to democracy? In H. R. Mahood (Ed.), Pressure groups in American politics. New York: Charles Scribner ' s Sons, 1967. Manzer, R. Selective inducements and the developm.ent of pressure groups: The case of Canadian teachers' associations. Canadian Journal of Political Science,

PAGE 195

188 March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations . New York: Wiley £> Sons, 1958. Harden, R. H. Essay review: The politics of education. Educational Administration Quarterly , 1965, 1_(2) , 54-63. Masters, N. A., Salisbury, R. H., & Eliot, T. H. State politics and the public schools . New York: Knopf, 1964. Mazzoni, T. L. State legislators and school policy-making. Planning and Changing , 1978, ^(3), 149-162. Mazzoni, T. L., & Campbell, R. F. Influentials in state policy making for the public schools. Educational Administration Quarterly , 1976, 12(1), 1-26. McMillan, G. Integration with dignity. The Saturday Evening Post , March 16, 1963, pp. 15-21. Meller, N. Legislative staff services. Western Political Quarterly , 1967, 20(2), 38?-389. Meller, N. The policy position of legislative service agencies. Western Political Quarterly , 1952, 5, 109-123. Mills, C. W. The sociological imagination . New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Minter, J. Florida: A new economic force. Fortune, July 13, 1981, pp. 13-14, 17-18. Moe, T. M. A calculus of group membership. American Journal of Political Science , 1980a, 24(4), 594-632. Moe, T. M. The organization of interests . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980b. Nunnery, M. Y., & Kimbrough, R. B. Politics, power, polls, and school elections . Berkeley, California: McCutchan, 1971. Nystrand, R. 0. State education policy systems. In R. F. Campbell & T. L. Mazzoni, Jr., State policy making for the public schools . Berkeley, California: McCutchan, 1976.

PAGE 196

189 Odegard, P. H. A group basis of politics: A new name for an ancient myth. Western Political Quarterly , 1958, 11, 699. Oliver, P. Rewards and punishments as selective incentives for collective action: theoretical investigations. American Journal of Sociology , 1980, 85^(6), 1356-1374. Olson, M. The logic of collective action . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965. Pareto, V. The rise and fall of the elites; An application of theoretical sociology . Totowa, N. J.: Bedminster Press, 1968. Patterson, S. C. American state legislatures and public policy. In H. Jacob & K. Vines (Eds.), Politics in the American states (3rd ed. ) . Boston: Little, Brown ,1976. Peterson, P. E. The politics of American education. In F. N. Kcrllnger & J. B. Carroll (Eds.), Review of research in education . Itasca, 111.: Peacock Publishers, 1974. Press, C, & VanBurg, K. State and community governments in the federal system . New York: Wiley & Sons, 1979. Presthus, R. Elite accommodation in Canadian politics . New York: The Macmillan Co., 1973. Presthus, R. Men at the top . New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Putnam, R. D. The comparative study of political elites . Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1976. Rankings of the states, 1980. NEA Research Memo . Washington, D. C. : National Education Association, 1980. Rosenthal, A. Professional staff and legislative influence in Wisconsin. In J. A. Robinson (Ed.), State legislative innovation . New York: Praeger, 1973.

PAGE 197

190 Salisbury, R. An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science , 1969, 13(1), 1-32. Schwartz, D. C. Political alienation and political behavior . Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1973. Shulman, L. S. Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. Educational Researcher , 1981, 10 (6 ) , 5-12, 23. Silverman, D. The theory of organizations . London: Heinemann, 19 76. Simon, H. A. Administrative behavior . New York: Free Press, 1957. Stinnett, T. M., & Cleveland, R. E. The politics and rise of teacher organizations. In A. C. Ornstein & S. I. Miller (Eds.), Policy issues in education . Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1976. Teverbaugh, D. Education crisis: an industrial iceberg. St. Petersburg Times , February 23, 1968, p. 6. Triaman D. B. The governmental process . New York: Knopf, 1951. Truman D. B. The governmental process (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf, 1971. Urban , W . Ideology and power in the Florida teacher walkout . Paper presented to Southeastern Philosophy of Education Society, Gainesville, Florida, February 11, 1972. Usdan, M. D. The role and future of state educational coalitions. Educational Administration Quarterly , 1969, 5, 26-41. Usdan, M. D., Minar, D. V7., & Hurwitz, E., Jr. Education and state politics . Columbia University: Teachers College Press, 1969. Verba, S. Small groups and political behavior . Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1961.

PAGE 198

191 Welsh, W. A. Leaders and elites . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1979. White, A. 0. Florida's crisis in public education: Changing patterns of leadership . Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1975. Williams, A. S. Alternatives to the right to strike public employees: Do they adequately implement Florida's constitutional right to collectively bargain? Florida State University Law Review , 1979, 7, 475-483. Wilson, J. Q. Political organizations . New York: Basic Books, 1973. Worman, M. A. Role consensus and conflict in legislature staffing. In J. J. Heaphey & A. P. Balutis (Eds.), Legislature staffing; A comparative perspective . New York: Wiley & Sons, 1975. Wyner, A. J. Legislative reform and politics in California. In J. A. Robinson (Ed.), State legislative innovation . New York: Praeger, 1973. Zeigler, L. H., & Baer, M. A. Interactions and influence in American state legislatures . Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1969. Zeigler, L. H., & van Dalen, H. Interest groups in state politics. In H. Jacob & K. N. Vines (Eds.), Politics in the American states . Boston: Little, Brown, 1976.

PAGE 199

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Norman H. Fergusson was born in Port Morien, Nova Scotia, and now resides in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. He is the son of the late Norman and Eva Jane Fergusson. He obtained Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Education degrees from Dalhousie University, and a Master of Arts degree from St. Mary's University, both in Halifax, Nova Scotia. In 1968 he received a Master of Education in Educational Administration from the University of Toronto. Mr. Fergusson taught in both private and public schools in Nova Scotia before joining the staff of the Nova Scotia Teachers ' Union as Assistant Executive Secretary. Since 1970 Mr. Fergusson has been Executive Secretary of this organization which embraces all licensed teachers (including administrators) in Nova Scotia. In his work in education in Nova Scotia Mr. Fergusson has been involved in such activities as acting as chief negotiator on behalf of teachers with their employing school boards; preparing many briefs for conciliation commissions, and conducting dispute activities; serving as the first 192

PAGE 200

193 secretary-treasurer of the Nova Scotia Teachers' Credit Union; editing the teachers' organization newsletter; representing teachers on the Minister of Education's Advisory Council on Teacher Education, and on the Foundation Program Committee; serving on committees of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, as well as attending teachers' organization conferences in Jamaica, Europe, and Africa; and participating as a leader in an international workshop in Ottawa. He is presently a member of the Board of Governors of the Atlantic Institute of Education based in Halifax, and has served for three years as its chairman. Mr. Fergusson is Vice-Chairman of the Board of Grace United Church in Dartmouth; a past secretary of the Dartmouth Kiwanis Club; a past chairman of the Nova Scotia branch of the Canadian College of Teachers; and a past president of St. George's Tennis Club. He is married and the father of four children.

PAGE 201

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Educational Administration and Supervision in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. May 1982 Professor of Educational Administration and Supervision Jajdes W. Longs-gpeth f .Associate Professor of Educationa], Administration and Supervision Robert R. Sherman Professor of Foundations of Education Dean, Graduate School



PAGE 1

PARENT, STUDENT, TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARD SCHOOL IN SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT By STANLEY PETER DROMISKY A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1974

PAGE 2

To All My Girls

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The success of my doctoral program is a manifestation of the kindness and understanding of many colleagues, family members, and friends who have helped me grow professionally and personally throughout the years. To my dear friend Jack Stennett my thanks for never losing faith and for everlasting inspiration. To my chairman, Dr. William M. Alexander, I am especially indebted for his continued academic, professional, and personal support of my efforts. He provided an example of scholarly excellence, tolerance, and charity which I hope this study does not discredit. My appreciation to Dr. Vynce A. Hines, who has demonstrated patience and a critical support throughout the entire program, and to Dr. Arthur J. Lewis for his warm reception, generosity, and sincerity. For adding support to my belief that this College of Education is exceptional, my appreciation to Dr. Gordon D. Lawrence and Dr. Charles A. Henderson. I am especially grateful to Dick and Donna DeNovellis for their expertise in computer programming, to Ruth Duncan and Dr. Kirby Stewart for their generosity and assistance, and to the directors, principals, teachers, parents, and students who warmly received and supported my endeavors.

PAGE 4

My love and appreciation to my sister Bernice, her husband Verne Allen, and my brother Jack Dromisky for guarding the fort during our absence, and also to my friend Bill Kibzey (my store-front lawyer) and his wife Heather, for unquestionable loyalty and devotion to task. May my actions never cease to express my gratitude and love to my wife, Peggy, and daughters, Jan and Susan, for their forbearance, support, and endless supply of love. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii ABSTRACT viii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .1 Theoretical Position 1 Statement of the Problem 3 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 6 The Florida-Kellogg Project 6 Related Literature 9 Summary 17 3. PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY 19 Operational Null Hypothesis 19 Subordinate Hypotheses 19 Assumptions 22 Definition of Terms 23 Limitations 25 Questionnaire 25 Instrumentation 28 Parent Questionnaire 28 Student Attitude Scale 30 Teacher Questionnaire 31 Collection of Data . , 32 Selection of Parent-Involved Schools ... 33 Selection of No Parent-Involved Schools . 34 Selection of the Parent Sample 34 Selection of the Student Sample 35 Selection of the Teacher Sample 3 6 Tabulation of the Data 36 4. ANALYSIS OF DATA 38 Observation of Parental Involvement .... 38 Schools With Parental Involvement .... 38 V

PAGE 6

Page CHAPTER Schools Without Parental Involvement ... 40 Summary of Response 41 Parent Questionnaire 41 Teacher Questionnaire 41 Student Questionnaire 4 4 Analysis and Discussion 44 Teacher Scale 46 Parent Scale 53 Student Scale 56 Summary 60 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 63 Summary 63 Operational Null Hypothesis 63 Design of the Study 64 Significant Findings of the Study .... 70 Conclusions 71 Implications 72 Suggestions for Further Study 7 5 APPENDICES A. TRANSMITTAL LETTERS 77 B. TEACHER HUMAN RELATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE .... 81 C. A PARENT'S VIEW OF THE SCHOOL 89 D. STUDENT ATTITUDE SCALE . 98 E. COMPARISON OF TEACHER RESPONSES ON TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRES FROM SCHOOL GROUPS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 105 F. COMPARISON OF PARENT RESPONSES ON PARENT QUESTIONNAIRES FROM SCHOOL GROUPS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 125 G. COMPARISON OF STUDENT RESPONSES ON STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES FROM SCHOOL GROUPS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 133 REFERENCES 147 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 152 yi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. NUMBER OF PARENT QUESTIONNAIRES DISTRIBUTED, NUMBER RETURNED, AND PERCENTAGE OF USABLE RETURNS FROM EACH OF THE SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEfffiNT 4 2 2. NUMBER OF TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRES DISTRIBUTED, NUMBER RETURNED, AND PERCENTAGE OF USABLE RETURIvlS FROM EACH OF THE SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 43 3. NUMBER OF STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES DISTRIBUTED SAMPLE SIZE, AND PERCENTAGE OF USABLE RETURNS FROM EACH OF THE SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 4 5 4. TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN MEANS FOR TEACHER GROUPS IN SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 48 5. TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN MEANS FOR PARENT GROUPS IN SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 54 6. TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN MEANS FOR STUDENT GROUPS IN SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 58 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PARENT, STUDENT, TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARD SCHOOL IN SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT By Stanley P. Dromisky August, 197 4 Chairman: Dr. William M. Alexander Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction This study attempted to determine whether there is a significant difference in attitudes toward school revealed by teachers, parents, and students in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Three attitude scales were used: Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire , Student Attitude Scale , and A Parent's View of the School . The 90-item teacher scale measured attitudes toward the teaching profession, other teachers, principal, students, school, and community. The 60-item student scale measured attitudes toward self, fellow students, teachers, principal, and school as a whole. The parent scale contained 21 items on school and 6 items on participation. The total scales and the 13 contained subscales resulted in 16 subordinate hypotheses. In Alachua, Dade, Hillsborough, and Orange Counties of Florida, seven elementary and middle schools with parental viii

PAGE 9

decision-making involvement in curriculum were chosen. Five schools without involvement in curriculum development were randomly selected. Schools that had established Citizens Advisory Councils within the past school year were excluded from the parent-involved category of schools. Schools that were predominantly populated with children of Caucasian, Negro, or Spanish heritage were not considered as being nonrepresentative of the general public school population. Students and parents were randomly selected while teachers volunteered responses. From the noninvolved schools, 106 anonymous teacher responses were used plus 38 5 anonymous parent and 401 anonymous student replies. From the involved schools, 145 teacher, 819 student, and 577 parent responses were used with all responses being anonymous. Teacher, parent, and student responses were recorded on IBM cards and analyzed. The significance of the difference between means of the involved and noninvolved group results in each subscale was evaluated with a t test. Total scale results were similarly treated. The findings indicated: 1. The parent group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward school as measured by total scores on the parent scale. 2. The teacher group from noninvolved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward the principal . ix

PAGE 10

3. The teacher group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward the community. 4. The parent group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward the school as measured on the subscale. 5. The student group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward teachers. No significant differences were discovered in teacher attitudes toward the teaching profession, teachers, students, and school. On the student scale, no significant differences were discovered in attitudes toward self, fellow students, principal, and the school as a whole. The parent groups revealed no significant difference in attitudes toward participation. Several implications were suggested for those concerned in public education. 1. Because of current criticism of the public school system, every educator should seriously consider the positive aspects of having parents involved in causes common to home and school. 2. In schools where parents are frequently and meaningfully involved, parents, educators, and students become more knowledgeable and understanding of each other, the school, and the home. 3. Parents can become a part of the curriculum planning team and can supplement the instructional program. X

PAGE 11

4. Public confidence in our schools is more readily gained through meaningful home-school relationships. 5. School boards should establish policies and practices that will nurture home, school, and community interrelationships. 6. In light of changing roles, needs, and programs within parent-involved schools, legislative authorities should provide financial support and consultative services Certain areas of study were also suggested. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Theoretical Position Contemporary literature abounds with communiques regarding the need' for parental involvement in curriculum development within our schools. Curriculum theorists Say lor and Alexander (1974) state that they . . . recognize fully that decisions concerning what to teach and what not to teach in local school districts must be shared not only by the local board of education but by the taxpayers and parents and students themselves. (p. 58) Lewis and Miel (1972) propose a synergetic organization for work on curriculum and instruction that, in essence, is a "plan to establish a partnership between community, students, and professionals" (p. 58). Proponents of community involvement in the educational system claim that people are no longer willing to be receivers of things done for or to them; rather they are seeking self-determination and a control over their own destinies through participation in the process of decisionmaking on issues directly related to them and their children (Deshler & Erlich, 1972, p. 174). Joining the chorus are many critics of our educational systems who have, basically, the same message: 1

PAGE 13

2 The remaking of American education will not be possible without a new kind of public dialogue in which all interested parties join. It will not be possible, moreover, unless we go beyond dialogue. Students, parents, teachers, administrators, school board members, college professors, taxpayers — all will have to act, which means that all will have to make difficult decisions; the road to reform is always uphill. (Silberman, 1971, p. 524) Not only is the road to reform uphill, but it is also exceedingly long. At the beginning of this century, John Dewey proclaimed that laymen will always have the right to some utterance on the operation of the public schools (Dewey, 1959, pp. v-vi) . From this need to become involved emerged school-sponsored citizen groups, often called advisory committees — a trend which has been developing in this country for over 60 years (Hamlin, 1953, p. 346). In fact, some school boards have mandated that principals of all schools within the board's jurisdiction must cooperate "with the school staff, parents, other community representatives, and students (middle and secondary) to establish and provide for the operation of a Citizen Advisory Council" (Longstreth, 1974, p. 1) . The council "shall participate in decision-making by advising the principal in matters pertaining to the local school and its educational program" (Longstreth, 1974, p. 2) . . In 1953 a survey of research related to organized citizen participation in the schools revealed that very little was available (Hamlin, 1953, p. 346). This only indicated a need for more research, for the community-

PAGE 14

3 oriented school of the 1930s reemerged during the mid-1940s in Michigan. Enthusiastic reports of parental involvement have stimulated the acceptance of these community schools throughout the country. A high percentage of these community-minded schools report that they now enjoy better relations with the community and the parent groups involved (Kindred & Allen, 1954, p. 144). Human relations, the National School Public Relations Association has stated, is an attempt to change attitudes and to build foundations of mutual respect and understanding among students, staff members, and the community. The probability of bringing about favorable attitudinal change is increased with meaningful , purposeful relationships of all parties concerned (Human Relations, 1973) . Therefore, one could assume that favorable attitudes would be revealed by parents, teachers, and students in school communities where parents and educators are cooperatively involved in meaningful curriculum development endeavors. To investigate the degree of validity in this assumption was the purpose of this study. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to investigate if there is any significant difference in the attitude toward the school of parents, teachers, and students v^ithin those

PAGE 15

4 school .communities that have parental involvement in curriculvim development and those that have no parental involvement. The differences in attitudes were analyzed in terms of scores derived from three attitudinal questionnaires: A Parent's View of the School , The Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire , and the Student Attitude Scale . Conceptually, one's attitudes toward school may include all perceptions, feelings, beliefs, and interests that are externally and internally related to a specific school or schools in general. In this study it was possible to achieve a better understanding of teacher, students, and parent attitudes toward school by examining specific components of their all-encompassing attitudes toward school. With the teachers from parent-involved and no parentinvolved schools, attitudes toward the teaching profession, toward other teachers, toward the principal, toward the school, and toward the community were examined. Parent attitudes toward participation in home-school endeavors were studied as well as attitudes toward the school. In the case of students , attitudes toward fellow students , toward self, toward teachers, toward principal, and toward school as a whole were relevant to the purpose of this study. By analysis of the component parts of teacher, pupil, and parent attitudes toward school, further understanding

PAGE 16

5 was gained of home-school relationships in parent-involved and no parent-involved school communities.

PAGE 17

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The Florida-Kellogg Project The College of Education, University of Florida, Leadership Study began in July, 1952. This project was part of the Southern States Cooperative Program in Educational Administration, with its regional center in the George Peabody College for Teachers. Within six years, 17 doctoral dissertations had been written about the public school principal and his relationship to his school and the community. The study of this relationship was the prime purpose of the Leadership Project (Grobman, 1958). Although the majority of the research was conducted in one large metropolitan county of Florida, the Project is of import to this study for several reasons : 1. The three instruments used in examining teacher, students, and parent attitudes toward school were conceived, created, tested, revised, and refined by individual Project researchers. 2. This study was conducted in four counties within the state of Florida. 3. To the degree that similar conditions exist, implied relationships may be made between the findings of this study and those of the Leadership Project. 6

PAGE 18

7 4. Because of the relatedness of the Leadership Project to the purpose of this study, relevant observations should be noted. This study did not attempt to identify and determine the democratic-nondemocratic ranking of the principals involved. However, certain observations of practices, as well as data, may lead one to assume that parent-involved schools are more democratically administered than no parentinvolved schools. The fact that community representatives participate in decision-making strategies regarding curriculum would suggest a practice more conducive to and supportive of participatory democracy. Farrar (1956) found that democratically administered schools tend to use community representatives and resource people in planning conferences and faculty meetings. Grobman (1958), in her interpretations of Farrar ' s study, stated that "as far as the principal is concerned, there are few two-way avenues of communication for joint program-planning, curriculum-development, or resource work" (pp. 105-6). Also, "there are fewer democratic practices used by principals in working with parents and community than in any other area of his inter-personal relations." Henderson (1954, pp. 161-62), in his study of schoolcommunity relationships using 60 schools in Hillsborough County, Florida, found a significant relationship between parent opinion and the operating style of the principal.

PAGE 19

8 He concluded that parents in more democratic schools have more favorable feelings about the school in general, although there was little use of parents and community in building the school program. Thomsen (1956, pp. 58-60) discovered that more than the principal's behavior affects the development of schoolcommunity interrelationships. He reported that parents react less favorably and interact less frequently in schools making the greatest number of changes in curriculum. Also, smaller schools tend to promote a better relationship between the principal and the community and there is a positive relationship between parental attitudes and the attitudes of the teacher. Where pupils have favorable attitudes toward self, the teacher attitudes toward school, community, and their profession are more favorable. Furthermore, Goodwin (1955) and Smith (1956, p. 98) reported that parental reaction becomes less favorable as the school level increases. Goodwin has shown that this trend was more commonly revealed by parents of children in junior and senior high schools. The interrelatedness of pupil, parent, and teacher attitudes toward school was further reinforced by Maynard (1955, pp. 135, 152) in her study of pupil human relations within the school. She found that elementary student attitudes are significantly more favorable than junior or senior high school students. Also, these increasing

PAGE 20

9 negative feelings at the secondary level in terms of less favorable attitudes toward school, principal, teachers, and peers are parallel to the increasing disaffection of teachers and parents to the school concerned. Grobman (1958, pp. 217-18), who analyzed the findings of all previous Florida-Kellogg Leadership studies, concluded that (a) a democratic operation pattern of a principal was related to more favorable responses from pupils, parents, teachers, and the community than was the authoritarian, and (b) the amount of interaction between parent and the school was related to the attitude of the parent toward the school. Related Literature Attitudes are acquired through experiences which have a pronounced affective component, according to Blair, Jones, and Simpson (1968, p. 202) , and more than any other form of learning, attitudes are transmitted through the process of imitation. In an active parent-involved school an intricate pattern of school, home, and community interrelationships may be found. Usually these relationships are sustained by a cooperative effort of the parties concerned in the achievement of specific goals. Whether by imitation or a combination of an unknown number of factors, it appears that significant effects may be derived from such relationships of home, school, and community.

PAGE 21

10 Pupil development, in terms of the academic program, may be the prime motivating factor for parental involvement. Significant gains in achievement, particularly in reading, have been recorded in parent-involved schools from Flint, Michigan (Passow, 1968), Athens, Georgia (Bohnhorst, 1959), and Rough Rock, Arizona (Roessel, 1968). It becomes more apparent that out-of-school factors may be far more significant than is realized in the determination of achievement increase (Lyle, 1968) . The Cloward and Jones (1963) study of low-income, working class and middle-class families on the lower east side of New York City stressed that parents of all classes involved in the school were inclined to believe that the school and education could actually effect change in their children. A feeling of control over one's destiny is apparently transmitted to children, who, in turn, reveal significant change in attitudes toward the school, teachers, and community. These findings were supported also by Passow (1968) . Attitudinal changes in parent-involved schools, such as Community Schools, have been positively correlated to specific student behavioral responses. Teachers in Flint, Michigan, Community Schools reported improved socialpsychological climate in the classroom, improvement in children's work habits and their attitudes toward the school and toward the teachers (Seay & Crawford, 1954) .

PAGE 22

11 Schiff (1963) found that parent participation in school affairs led to greater pupil achievement, better school attendance, and fewer discipline problems. More pronounced student involvement in school and community affairs, in curriculum planning, and improvement in social conduct, attitudes, and behavior on the part of the students are claimed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky Study (Kentucky, 194 6) , the Banneker Group of Schools in St. Louis (Passow, 1967) , and the Michigan School Service Program (Seay & Crav/ford, 1954) . In parent-involved school communities, parents and teachers may be significantly affected also. When there is purposeful involvement of parents in school affairs, Cloward and Jones (1963) have shown that parent and teacher evaluations of the importance of education is positively correlated with their attitudes toward the school as an institution. This attitudinal-behavioral change, according to Hess and Shipman (1966) , appears to assist the child in developing more favorable images of the school, of the teacher, and of the role of the pupil. Through the intricate pattern of task-oriented relationships within the parent-involved school community, parents, teachers, and principals have indicated a more pronounced feeling of competence and self-worth. They also reported greater satisfaction with their school and

PAGE 23

12 community in those cases where they perceived that they were mutually influential (Olsen, 1953; Oscarson, 1971). The length and frequency of involvement are significant factors in the increase of understanding and awareness which usually accompanies the participation (Bender, 1972). In effect, the more knowledgeable a teacher is about her pupils, the more effective the helping relationship may be. Results reported by Geisert (1965) indicate that pupils who were taught by teachers having low pupil-knowledge scores regressed in their attitude toward school, while the reverse was true with teachers that had high pupilknowledge scores. Much educational literature supports lay participation in curriculum development. Recently, the reaction of 329 professional educators (principals and teachers) to lay participation in curriculum development was obtained in a 60-item attitude and opinion questionnaire. From the interpretations of the results, the professional respondents revealed : 1. Lay participation in curriculum study does deserve use. 2. Professional educators are willing to work with lay people in curriculum on a restricted basis , according to the background of citizens plus the content being studied. 3. Professionals want lay groups closely tied to school systems, opposing any independent groups.

PAGE 24

13 4. Lay participation of this type improves homeschool relations and understanding. 5. Lay participation in curriculum study results in added status for professionals within the community (Mara, 1962) . In a more recent study (Baker, 1973), professionals' enthusiasm for lay participation was not as strong. Included were parents of fourand five-year-old children from 10 classes which had no parent involvement, plus 10 classes which had federally supported programs requiring parental involvement. The teachers and principals of the schools concerned were also included. A five-point, bipolar adjectival scale, semantic differential was used to measure attitudes toward parental involvement. In Baker's study the parents of children attending schools requiring the parental involvement component had a higher mean attitude toward each concept studied. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups of parents on the concepts of parental assistance in the classroom and parental participation in school decisions. The involved parent group had a significantly better attitude than the noninvolved toward the concepts: (a) parents at school, (b) home visit by teacher, (c) parent-teacher conference, (d) small group meetings for parents, and (e) large group meetings for parents , than the noninvolved group. In essence, the differences lie in preferred

PAGE 25

14 strategies for involvement and not in basic attitudes toward participation within the schools. Parents from both groups revealed a significantly more positive attitude than the teachers did regarding home visits by teacher, parents assisting in the classroom, and all forms of structured meetings with parents. Parent Attitude and Student Attitude Inventories were used in a study of a no parent-involved school community. Almost one-third of the 100 students from grades four through eight revealed negative attitudes toward teachers. The parents were consistently more favorably inclined toward the school than the students were (Wendel, 1962). In another study of the relationship between pupil and adult attitudes toward school, it was revealed that school-related attitudes of pupils can be influenced by adults. Sampled subjects of 100 boys and 100 girls enrolled in the sixth grade were randomly assigned to react to a series of 10 still pictures of adults being critical toward school, related objects, and events. A semantic differential scale of attitudes demonstrated that attitudes of pupils toward classroom events were significantly influenced by exposure to critical adult models. Since parents are preeminent within the population of enduring models, it can be speculated that rejection of school values may be passed on to the next generation through imitation . (Paelet, 1973) .

PAGE 26

15 Another study of expressed attitudes of parents, pupils, and teachers toward school provided additional credence to the belief that pupils acquire and maintain parent-made attitudes. A 96-item inquiry form was employed with 365 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade children from 29 schools. A parent of each child also responded. Pupils and parents, as groups, were in agreement. in their thinking on 93.75 percent of the items. Pupils and educators were in agreement on 77.08 percent of the items in the inquiry (Coakley, 1956) . In a study of the relationship between the Community School concept and selected public attitudes, a questionnaire was given to 54 participants in Community Schools and to an equal number of nonparticipants . Significant differences were indicated between participant and nonparticipant attitudes toward education in general, community education, and the community. This study demonstrated that differences in attitudes do exist between citizens who participate in school and those who do not (Ahola, 1970) . However, in 1960, Land made a study of parental feelings toward selected aspects of a special laboratory school which maintained favorable home-school relationships. The feelings were related to certain parental classifications. From 514 respondents it was discovered that there was no significant relationship between the frequency of parental involvement in school activities and favorable

PAGE 27

16 feelings toward the school. Also, there was no significant relationship between the number of years a child had been enrolled in the school and favorable feelings toward the school. Initially developed positive attitudes toward the school were probably nurtured and maintained through effective home-school relationships. In an extensive appraisal of the roles of Citizens Advisory Committees in the area of curriculum development, Farrah (1962) reported some interesting discoveries. He noted that these committees were good sounding boards for new ideas, a source of information about popular opinions, and an indirect way of gaining local financial support. However, the professionals dominated the meetings. There was little evidence that citizens evaluated data pertaining to the curriculum. Also, there was doubt that an advisory committee could make significant changes in the curriculum. ^ Seldin (1973) , in her study of attempts to increase community involvement in a school system, reported that Community School councils or committees have little or no effect on the curriculum of the school. In Mount Prospect, Illinois, a study was conducted in order to discover whether the deliberations of citizens advisory committees were effective in bringing about attitudinal change. The experimental group consisted of a citizens committee of 34 members v/hich undertook the task of studying junior high school curriculum. They were also

PAGE 28

17 to plan and recommend a course of action to the board of education. The control group was composed of 224 citizens selected at random from the residents of the community. The same attitudinal questionnaire was given for pretest and posttest purposes. There were no significant differences between groups on the pretest. The posttest results were significant. The involved members showed a growth in positive attitudes toward school while the attitudes toward school of the noninvolved citizens made no significant change (Hall, 1971) . Summary From this review of literature it appears that: 1. The educator and parent must cooperatively deliberate in meaningful and purposeful ways in order to bring about desired change as revealed by Passow (1968) and Seay and Crawford (1954). 2. Successful collaboration is more easily attained if those involved are attitudinally receptive to each other, to purpose, and process, as indicated by Olsen (1953), Oscarson (1971) , Mara (1962) , Baker (1973) , and Seldin (1973). 3. Students are inadvertently found between two significant attitudinal forces (parents and educators) and may be influenced by either or both, as shown by Passow (1967, 1968) , Wendel (1962) , Geisert (1965) , Schiff (1963) , and Paelet (1973).

PAGE 29

18 4. Community involvement in the affairs of the school may or may not lead to achievement of goals as well as attitudinal change which is positive in all parties concerned, as shown by Kindred and Allen (1954) , Ahola (1970) , and Baker (1973) .

PAGE 30

CHAPTER 3 PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY Due to the complex nature of the homeschool -community relationships and the unknown number of determinants involved in the creation of pupil, teacher, and parent attitudes toward school, the principal hypothesis and the subsequent subordinate hypotheses are presented in the null form. Operational Null Hypothesis There is no significant difference in attitudes toward school revealed by teachers, parents, and students within schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development . Subordinate Hypotheses 1. There is no significant difference in parent attitudes toward school as measured by total scores on A Parent's View of the School questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 2. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward school as measured by total scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 3. There is no significant difference in student attitudes toward school as measured by total scores on the 19

PAGE 31

20 Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 4. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the teaching profession as measured by total scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in school with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 5. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward other teachers as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 6. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the principal as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 7. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the children as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 8. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the school as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 9. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the community as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development.

PAGE 32

% 21 10. There is no significant difference in student atti tudes toward self as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 11. There is no significant difference in student atti tudes toward fellow students as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 12. There is no significant difference in student attitudes toward teachers as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 13. There is no significant difference in student attitudes toward the principal as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 14. There is no significant difference in student attitudes toward school as a whole as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 15. There is no significant difference in parent attitudes toward participation as measured by scores on the questionnaire, A Parent's View of the School , in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development .

PAGE 33

22 16. There is no significant difference in parent attitudes toward school as measured by scores on the questionnaire, A Parent's View of the School , in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Assumptions For purposes relevant to this study, the following assumptions must be noted: 1. The three instruments used in this study are valid and reliable, thus suitable for the purposes for which they were designed. 2. Sampling the parents of students in all grades except the first constitutes appropriate representation of the school's parent population. 3. Sampling the fifth and sixth grade children in elementary schools constitutes appropriate representation of the student population within the elementary school. 4. Sampling the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students in junior high schools or middle schools constitutes appropriate representation of the student population within these schools. 5. Sampling procedures within the study diminish the threat of misrepresentation of the general school community population . 6. It is assumed that parent feelings toward their own schools differ from feelings toward schools in general.

PAGE 34

23 "There is generally some sense of proprietory pride in their own school that transcends criticism of schools in general (Hines & Grobman , 1957)." Therefore, it is further assumed that this sense of proprietory pride is applicable to all schools used in this study. 7. The comparability of survey sites used is no threat to the generalizability of this study. 8. Data obtained during the last month of the school year are most relevant for the problem under study. 9. The limitations of this study were designed to concentrate the investigation on the major hypothesis and also keep the investigation within feasible magnitude for a single investigator. Definition of Terms Certain words or terms used have meanings peculiar and pertinent to this study. These words or terms follow. 1Parent population : All adults living in the school attendance area who have children or wards in the school. 2. Attitude: The position or disposition of an individual with respect to the elements of the school as determined by the Student Attitude Scale , Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire , and A Parent's View of the School questionnaire . 3. Significant : The statistical improbability of a test result occurring because of chance. In the present

PAGE 35

24 study all major tests were made at or beyond the 5 percent level of confidence; thus 5 times out of 100 there would be no difference. 4. Parent-Involved School : For purposes of this study parents must be involved in curriculum development strategies. Involvement may be structured or a combination of structured and informal ways in contributing to curriculum development. 5. No Parent-Involved School ; Parents are not an integral part of the decision-making strategies within curriculum development. 6. Parent Questionnaire : The University of FloridaKellogg Leadership Study Parent Questionnaire (PAS) which is designed to get information on (a) how parents feel about the school their children attend, and (b) how they interact with the school. The questionnaire is entitled A Parent's View of the School . 7. Teacher Questionnaire ; The University of FloridaKellogg Leadership Study Teacher Questionnaire (TAS) is designed to describe the attitudes and feelings of teachers toward the principal, other teachers, pupils, and other human relations aspects of their job. The questionnaire is entitled the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire . 8. Student Questionnaire ; The University of FloridaKellogg Leadership Study Student Questionnaire (SAS) is designed to measure attitudes of students toward self.

PAGE 36

25 fellow students, teachers, principal, and the school as a whole. The questionnaire is entitled the Student Attitude Scale . Limitations 1. This study was limited to schools of Alachua, Dade, Hillsborough, and Orange Counties. 2. The study was confined to an investigation of those elements of parental attitude toward the school revealed from the test instrument, A Parent's View of the School . 3. The study was confined to an investigation of those elements of teacher attitude toward the school revealed from the test instrument. Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire . 4. The study was confined to an investigation of those elements of student attitude toward the school revealed from the test instrument. Student Attitude Scale . 5. The Student Attitude Scale was administered to all senior grade children in the elementary schools involved. From these totals a random selection of approximately 100 students was made wherever possible. A similar number of students were randomly sampled from grades six, seven, and eight in the two middle schools used in this study. 6. The selection of schools was limited to elementary, junior high, or middle schools which employed 12 or more full-time teachers.

PAGE 37

26 7. No schools that were established in the past two school years were used. 8. Senior high schools, vocational schools, special education centers, military establishments, adult training centers, or private schools were not considered for purposes of this study. 9. The coding of the instruments follows the same patterns established by previous research in the FloridaKellogg Project. 10. The attitudes of parents, teachers, and students toward school are influenced by a multitude of factors that are not considered in this study. 11. Due to the fact that many schools in the fourcounty study sites had established Citizens Advisory Councils or Committees within the past school year, inclusion of such a committee or council in a no parent-involved school did not exclude that school from such a category. It was assumed that these newly formed committees had had little or no influence on the attitudes of the school communities at the time of this study. 12. Selected parent-involved schools met the demands of the following criteria: A. Parents or community representatives must be involved in decision-making strategies with school personnel for some portion of curriculum development within the school.

PAGE 38

Parental involvement in curriculum development may be via structured strategies or a combination of structured and informal strategies . Participation via structured strategies may include the Citizens Advisory Committee plus one or more of the following possibilities: 1. Representatives participate in planning conferences with the administration. 2. Parents plan and work with teachers within subject fields. 3. There is a standing lay-faculty curriculum committee. 4. P.T.A. study groups exist that make genuine contributions to curriculum development. 5. Representatives from community organizations participate in curriculum planning an'd development. 6. Representatives participate in planning conferences with the faculty. 7 . Any other strategy acceptable to the investigator. Parental participation must have been operational for a period extending beyond the present school year.

PAGE 39

28 13. No attempt was made in this study to go beyond the data in evaluating test results. 14. Data obtained from items 1-7, items 34, and 36-40 on A Parent's View of the School were not used for this study. The information from these excluded items will be used in a specially prepared monograph for each of the schools involved. 15. Due to the scarcity of parent-involved schools which met the requirements established, it was necessary to use those discovered through a search process. 16. Parent-involved schools which are within the limitations of this study were not randomly selected. 17. Schools that were predominantly populated with children of Caucasian, Negro, or Spanish heritage were not considered as being nonrepresentative of the general public school population. Instrumentation Parent Questionnaire The instrument, A Parent's View of the School , was originally developed by Paul P. Williams (1953) for the University of Florida-Kellogg Leadership Study. The instrument went through a series of modifications, and the most recent version was used in this study. Its validity was originally checked against estimates and ratings of a seven-person research team who made regular visits to five

PAGE 40

29 schools over a school year. They reported that the accumu'lated sta-tistical evidence for validity of the questionnaire was indicative of the instrument's merit. The attitude section has a reported estimate of reliability of .937 (Smith, 1956). In this study, separate tests were performed with data from the parent-involved and no parent-involved groups of schools. Using Kuder-Richardson No. 20, a reliability of .834 was calculated for the no parent-involved group and .849 for the parent-involved group. The entire instrument was not used. Items 1 to 7 within the personal data section were omitted because they do not contribute toward the study. Items 38-40, inclusive, were also omitted because they are open-ended and cannot be tabulated. Except for items 34, 36, and 37, which could not be suitably coded, the remaining 27 items were used to rate parental attitudes. Coding and scoring . The coding of the response totals by items for each school were computed with the use of the following key: 1. Items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 were scored (5,4,3,2,1) with the first response being (5) , second (4) , third (3) , fourth (2) , and fifth (1) . 2. Items 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, and 33 were scored (5,3,1) with the first response being (5), second (3), and the last response (1) .

PAGE 41

30 3. Items 27, 29, 30, and 35 were scored (5,4,3,1) with the first response being (5) , second (4) , third (3) , and the fourth (1) . 4. Item 17 was scored (4,3,1,1) with the first response (4) , second (3) , third (1) , and fourth (1) . 5. Item 28 was scored (5,3,2,1) with the first response (5) , second (3) , third (2) , and fourth (1) . 6. Items 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 were not scored. Any item with no response was given a rating of (3) . Student Attitude Scale The Student Attitude Scale was developed by Jean A. Battle (1954) in the University of Florida-Kellogg Leadership Study. It was adopted without revision for this study. The instrument was originally designed to measure attitudes of sixth, ninth, and eleventh grade students toward self, fellow students, teachers, principal, and the school as a whole. The original creators of this instrument checked its validity against two previously existing student attitude scales plus teachers' judgments of student attitudes (Grobman, 1958). Split-half reliabilities varied from .88 to .94. In this study, separate tests were performed with student data from the parent-involved and no parentinvolved groups of schools. Using Kuder-Richardson No. 20, a reliability of .868 was calculated for the no parentinvolved group and .918 for the parent-involved group.

PAGE 42

31 Coding and scoring . All items on this instrument were rated by the students. They encircled one of the choices: MT (mostly true) , S (half-true and half-false) , or MF (mostly false) . Originally, a (3,2,1) coding for favorable to unfavorable responses was recommended by Battle. This study used Luckenbach's (1959) coding system which is (-1) for the mostly true response, (0) for the half-true and half-false response, and (+1) for the mostly false response. This 60-item form is composed of 15 items on self, 10 on peers, 20 on teachers, 10 on the principal, and 5 on the school as a whole. Teacher Questionnaire The 90-item instrument. Teacher Human Relations Ques tionnaire , was developed as part of the University of Florida-Kellogg Leadership Study. It was designed to portray the attitudes and feelings of teachers toward the principal, other teachers, pupils, and other human relations aspects of their job. Further revision by Goodwin (1955) resulted in the present form which was used in this study. Validity was based upon correlation with other instruments, predictions of observers, and item-test correlations. Reliabilities of .958 and .966 were reported by Goodwin. In this study, separate tests were performed with teacher data from the parent-involved and the no parentinvolved groups of schools. Using Kuder-Richardson No. 20,

PAGE 43

32 a reliability of .946 was calculated for the no parentinvolved group and .949 for the parent-involved group. This 90-item form contains 7 items pertaining to attitudes toward the teaching profession, 17 items on other teachers, 18 on the principal, 16 on pupils, 16 on the school, and 16 items related to the community. Coding and scoring . The questionnaire is based on a three-point scale and was scored (+1) for agreement with determined correct responses, (0) for being undecided, and (-1) for disagreement. An unwillingness to respond to an item was construed as a form of undecidedness on the part of the respondent and was scored (0) . Agreement with the following 38 items was considered a correct response and scored (+1): 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, 40, 41, 42, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 59, 62, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 90. Disagreement with any of the remaining 5 2 items was recognized as a correct response and scored (+1) . Collection of Data The study sites for purposes of this investigation were the School Districts of Alachua, Dade, Hillsborough, and Orange Counties, State of Florida. Each of the counties possesses a major metropolitan area, which are: Gainesville (Alachua) , Orlando (Orange) , Tampa (Hillsborough) , and Miami (Dade) .

PAGE 44

33 The schools of Alachua, Orange, and Hillsborough Counties had been fully integrated with a fair distribution of whites, Negro-Americans, and Spanish-heritage children in the majority of the schools. Dade County had a few schools that were predominantly populated with NegroAmericans, others with Spanish-heritage children, and some were predominantly white. In 1972, approximately 15.3 percent of the children of Dade County were black while Alachua had 30.5 percent black children. However, only 2.4 percent of Alachua's children were of Spanish heritage while Hillsborough had 10.7 percent; Orange, 2 percent; and Dade, 2 3.6 percent. Median family income was fairly uniform for the four counties. Alachua had a greater percentage of people employed in educational and government services. Dade is the most industrial and commercial (U . S . , 1973). Selection of Parent-Involved Schools Schools that meet the criteria established for parental involvement in decision-making processes are not plentiful. In the first phase of the search, county superintendents or curriculum directors were contacted for initial leads to this particular type of school. In the second phase, further data regarding each school was obtained from curriculum directors, directors of research, or zone directors.

PAGE 45

34 Having received verification from two sources, the principal of the designated parent-involved school was contacted for final assessment. Procedures as directed by Board policy were followed in each county. Selection of No Parent-Involved Schools For every parent-involved school selected in the four counties, a no parent-involved school was randomly selected from those that met the specifications. The Florida Educational Directory (1973) was used with the aid of county personnel. Procedures as directed by Board policy were followed in each county. Selection of the Parent Sample The parents' questionnaire, A Parent's View of the School, was distributed to a stratified, random sample of parents in each of the schools involved. Stratification means that each class or administrated grouping is proportionately represented in the total sample. First grade classes or equivalent were excluded. By use of a table of random numbers, the investigator selected from the class directories a number of names in the same proportion to the enrollment of the class or grouping, as the enrollment of that class was to the total enrollment of the school (Fox, 1969).

PAGE 46

35 With a desired sample size of 100, it was deemed necessary to select approximately 125 names in order to allow for duplications, absenteeism, and refusals. It was felt that this method of selecting the sample would result in a minimum of sample error. The selected students received the parent questionnaire from the investigator and were asked to take it home to their parents or guardians. The questionnaire was enclosed within an unsealed, blank envelope containing a letter of transmittal to the parent (Appendix A) . The student's name was recorded in order to keep an accurate record of recipients for possible follow-up purposes. The questionnaires, sealed by the parents in order to preserve anonymity, were returned to the classroom teachers within three days. Daily reminders to the children were issued by cooperating school personnel for purposes of encouraging an early return of the questionnaires. Completed questionnaires, which were deposited in the central office of the school, were collected by the investigator one week after distribution. Selection of the Student Sample Although an approximated sample of 100 randomly selected students from each school was originally planned, this objective could not be achieved consistently. Due to administrative and organizational situations within the

PAGE 47

36 schools, plus reading ability of students, samples of less than 100 students were available in four of the elementary schools involved. In eight of the schools, because of teacher and principal recommendations, the questionnaire items were read to fifth or sixth grade respondents by the classroom teachers. In the other schools, teachers, teacher aides, and the investigator provided assistance to the students with reading problems . Selection of the Teacher Sample No random selection of the teachers was made. Each teacher received the teacher questionnaire in an unsealed, blank envelope and responded on a voluntary basis. An enclosed letter of transmittal (Appendix A) instructed the teachers to place the sealed, completed questionnaire in the central office of the school. A record was kept of those received in order to facilitate follow-up processes during the second visit to the school by the investigator. Tabulation of the Data The student, parent, and teacher groups of questionnaires were numbered consecutively per school. A code was created to identify the name and type of school. Each questionnaire was scored and coded by the investigator and a competent assistant. During this process.

PAGE 48

37 responses were checked for duplications, clarity, and omissions, which resulted in several rejected questionnaires. Data from the questionnaires were transferred to IBM cards. One school was randomly selected for verification purposes which meant that approximately 7 percent of the total number of cards punched were checked for error. Of the 10,914 items recorded on these cards, 3 were incorrect. Because of this extremely high indication of accuracy, it was decided that this margin of error would have an infinitestimal effect on the total results of the study and that verification of all the punched cards was not necessary . With the aid of data processing equipment, the necessary tabulations, comparisons, and statistical analyses were made in reference to the major and subordinate hypotheses of this study. The subsequent chapter presents the results of these efforts.

PAGE 49

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA Observation of Parental Involvment Prior to the presentation of any analyses of data, specific observations must be noted regarding parent-school relationships in the 12 schools involved in this study. Of import is the fact that parents were involved in each of the schools to some extent. This is readily supported by a comparison study of the participation or relationship data of items 29-3 5 of the parents' questionnaire in Appendix F. However, the nature of involvement, and not the frequency, was the investigator's chief concern in the determination of schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. The critical demarcation point on the continuum of parental involvement appears to have been reached when teachers and administrators have visibly demonstrated not only a willingness to collaborate with parents on curriculum matters but have cooperatively planned, designed, and initiated decision-making strategies. Manifestations of these efforts were found in a spectrum of activities. Schools With Parental Involvement All schools in this study have created school Advisory 38

PAGE 50

39 Councils but only one of the seven parent-involved schools maintained permanent group structures for curricular purposes as indicated in the principal's Annual Report of School Progress ; The principal, the school staff, and parent groups show concern for the total instructional offerings of the school through planning, observing, and evaluating. Planning procedures used include total faculty meetings. School Advisory Council, and Area Curriculum Council meetings, guidance committee meetings, and small and large group meetings with consultants in specific subject areas. (Miller, 1974, p. 10) In the school mentioned above parents participated in the planning of curriculum goals in certain areas of concern and, as participants in the learning setting, made decisions regarding subject content in order to meet the immediate needs of the learner. In another school parent volunteers had contributed approximately 1,385 hours of their time during the first semester of the 1973-74 school year (Fisher, 1974, p. 31). The range of involvement extended from perfunctory tasks, such as collating printed materials, to the actual planning and teaching of specific subject matter. As an illustration of this latter phenomenon, community representatives had planned and conducted mini -workshops in film-making, chemistry, fine arts, mechanical science, rocketry, creative writing, drama and speech, chess, macrame, group tennis, creative dancing, baby-sitting skills, string instrument instruction, ceramics, model making, and photography.

PAGE 51

40 As instructional aides, parents cooperatively planned with teachers in various programs such as language arts, mathematics, foreign language, speech improvement, guidance and counseling, art appreciation, special interest areas, learning disabilities, reading, and physical education. The degree, nature, frequency, and opportunity for parental participation varied in each of the schools within the parent-involved group. Schools Without Parental Involvement None of the five schools within this group revealed in-depth and comprehensive patterns of parent-teacher collaboration on curricular matters. Parent Advisory Councils, which had been created during the school year, were in the initial stages of development and thus considered noninfluential at the time of this study. Three of the noninvolved schools did encourage parental participation in special school or class events such as outdoor education excursions, field days, picnics, candy sales. Arbor Day, plus volunteered assistance in the libraries, offices, health services, and cafeteria. In two of the schools within this group, there was no evidence available of strategies established for the purpose of enhancing home-school relationships, with the exception of the newly formed Parent Advisory Councils.

PAGE 52

41 Summary of Response Parent Questionnaire Studies of parental attitudes toward school were conducted by three of the four County Boards of Education used in this study. This having been done in the month prior to the distribution of questionnaires for this study, it may be conjectured that response results may have been affected. However, of the 894 parent questionnaires distributed in the seven schools of the parent-involved group, 592 were returned. Of those returned, 15 were unanswered or improperly marked, thus leaving a total of 577 usable returns, or 64.5 percent of the total sample (see Table 1) . From the noninvolved group of schools, 404 of the 634 distributed questionnaires were returned, of which 19 were unusable; thus 60.7 percent of the total sample remained intact for use in this study. Teacher Questionnaire Due to the demanding nature of events during the last month of the school year, voluntary returns from the teachers were not expected to be plentiful. Nevertheless, of the 218 teacher questionnaires distributed in the seven schools of the parent-involved group, 151 were returned. A loss of 6 unacceptable returns resulted in an usable 66.5 percent of the total sample (see Table 2) .

PAGE 53

42 TABLE 1 NUMBER OF PARENT QUESTIONNAIRES DISTRIBUTED, NUMBER RETURNED, AND PERCENTAGE OF USABLE RETURNS FROM EACH OF THE SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Total Percent Number Number usable usable School distributed returned returns Returns Schools With Involvement 01 130 66 65 50.0 02 135 105 102 75.6 03 131 57 55 41. 9 04 126 89 89 70.6 05 125 93 89 71.2 06 123 107 103 83 .7 07 124 75 74 59.7 Total 894 592 577 64 . 5 Schools Without Involvement 11 125 55 51 40.8 12 135 81 73 54.1 13 125 103 102 81. 6 14 124 86 86 69.3 15 125 79 73 58.4 Total 634 404 385 60.7

PAGE 54

43 TABLE 2 NUMBER OF TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRES DISTRIBUTED, NUMBER RETURNED, AND PERCENTAGE OF USABLE RETURNS FROM EACH OF THE SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Total Percent Number Number usable usable School distributed returned returns Returns Schools With Involvement 01 18 12 1 Z D O . O 02 26 26 o c. Z b inn n J. u u • u 03 50 20 19 TO n 04 34 29 2o Q 0 T O ^ . J 05 25 21 21 84 . 0 06 36 19 17 47.2 07 29 24 22 75.9 Total 218 151 145 66.5 Schools Without Involvement 11 29 15 15 51.7 12 20 19 18 90.0 13 35 26 26 74.2 14 35 23 23 65.7 15 28 24 24 85.7 Total 147 107 106 72.1

PAGE 55

44 From the five schools in the noninvolved group, 107 of the 147 distributed questionnaires were returned, of which one was unusable; thus 7 2.1 percent of the total sample was used in this study. Because a small number of schools were incorporated within each group, no conclusive implications can be drawn from the data in Table 2 . Student Questionnaire A total of 819 student questionnaires were distributed in grades five, six, seven, and eight within the parentinvolved group of seven schools. From a randomly selected sample of 638 returns, it was necessary to reject 43 improperly marked questionnaires. A total of 595 returns were used which represented 93.3 percent of the total randomly selected sample (see Table 3). From a total of 819 student questionnaire returns obtained in grades five, six, seven, and eight within the group of five noninvolved schools a sample of 462 questionnaires was randomly selected. From this sample 61 incorrectly marked returns were rejected. Of the total randomly selected sample, 8 6.8 percent of the returns were considered usable. Analysis and Discussion The major premise of this study was the assumption that there is no significant difference in attitudes toward

PAGE 56

45 TABLE 3 NUMBER OF STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES DISTRIBUTED, SAMPLE SIZE, AND PERCENTAGE OF USABLE RETURNS FROM EACH OF THE SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Total Percent Number Sample usable of sample School distributed size returns usable Schools With Involvement 01 150 100 97 97 .0 02 78 78 73 93.6 03 155 100 82 82.0 04 69 69 64 92.8 05 89 89 87 97 .8 06 158 102 101 99.0 07 120 100 91 91.0 Total 819 638 595 93.3 Schools Without Involvement 11 ' 141 100 83 83.0 12 61 61 55 90.2 13 125 100 91 91. 0 14 142 100 87 87 . 0 15 119 101 85 84 . 2 Total 588 462 401 86.8

PAGE 57

46 school as revealed by teachers, students, and parents within schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum ' development. The subjects that participated in this study revealed their disposition toward school in the form of scores obtained on attitude scales which were the Teacher ' Human Relations Questionniare , the Student Attitude Scale , and A Parent's View of the School . Each of these instruments contained subscales which have been statistically treated as unrelated, discrete measures for analytical purposes. These conceptually discrete segments have been transcribed in the form of 16 subordinate hypotheses as presented in Chapter 3. In the following presentation the results of each statistically tested subordinate hypothesis is followed by discussion for purposes of clarity, continuity, and conceptual integration. Teacher Scale Attitudes toward teaching profession . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the teaching profession as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. A t test recommended by J. V. Glass and J. Stanley (1970, p. 295-97) revealed that the difference between the means of the two teacher groups was not

PAGE 58

47 statistically significant (see Table 4). The statistical evidence available supported the null hypothesis. It appears that the established limitations of this study may have influenced the results to some degree. Sampling error and bias in the form of volunteered teacher responses appear to have attracted teachers of similar disposition toward the teaching profession, A careful comparison study of group responses to each of the items in this subscale tends to support this latter view (see Appendix E) . In addition, it is questionable whether the group of seven items has consistently measured that which it claims to be measuring. A Kuder-Richardson No. 20 reliability test on this subscale produced a reliability coefficient of .47 8 for the teacher group in no parentinvolved schools and .566 for the teacher group in parentinvolved schools. These are respectable indications that variability was lacking in the nature of responses and the range and number of test items. However, the volunteered teacher samples were sufficiently large to indicate that the teacher group from the parent-involved schools held views of the teaching profession very similar to those of the teacher group from no parent-involved schools. Attitudes toward other teachers . It was statistically discovered that there was no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward other teachers as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in

PAGE 59

48 TABLE 4 TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN !'4EANS FOR TEACHER GROUPS IN SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Attitude subscales Number or XUtilUh) Involved group (N = 145)^ Means SD Noninvolved group (N = 106) Means SD Obtained values of t Toward profession 7 1.83 2 . 97 1.19 2. 81 -1.69 Toward teachers 17 7.26 7.38 7 . 61 7.74 .36 Toward principal 18 7.32 7 . 32 9.44 6.60 2. 35* Toward children 16 6.59 6.45 6.45 .6. 63 -.16 Toward school 16 7 .11 6.85 7 .89 6.33 .92 Toward community 16 7. 92 6. 22 4.43 5.96 -4.45* Total attitude scale 60 38.03 29.06 37 . 04 27.71 -.273 ^SD = standard deviation *Critical t value at the .05 level is 1.96 for a twotailed test with 249 degrees of freedom.

PAGE 60

49 schcfols with and without parental involvement in curriculum development (see Table 4) . On opinions regarding specific teacher interrelationships there was little variation in group response patterns as revealed by the data in Appendix E. Of interest is the observation that the teacher group from no parent-involved schools showed a slight inclination in being more supportive and team oriented than the involved teacher group. Response results for items 14, 21, 23, and 24 tend to support this observation (Appendix E) . This phenomenon may be attributed to teacher expectations of professional behavior as well as to chance. This study provides no data to support other interpretations. Attitudes toward the principal . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the principal as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistically it was shown that a significant difference did exist and, as a result, the null hypothesis was not accepted (see Table 4) . The teacher group from the schools without parental involvement appeared to have a significantly more positive attitude toward the principal than the teacher group from parent-involved schools. The most obvious differences were revealed in the response comparisons of items 27, 33, and 35,

PAGE 61

50 in Appendix E. A much larger percentage of the teachers from the parent-involved schools have indicated a fear of reprisal and embarrassment if they displease the principal in some way. The investigator of this study observed that several of the principals from parent-involved schools were intensely concerned about their school-community relationships. It may be that this concern has resulted in leadership practices that some teachers perceive as being threatening. However, no attempt was made in this study to identify administrative and supervisory practices of the principal and their relationship to teacher behavior. Attitudes toward the children . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward students as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistical analysis of the results from this 16-item subscale revealed that there was no significant difference, and the null hypothesis was accepted (see Table 4) . The teacher group from the parent-involved schools revealed attitudes toward the students similar to those of the teacher group from no parent-involved schools. Attitudes toward the school . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the school as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without

PAGE 62

51 parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistical analysis of the results from this 16-item subscale revealed that there was no significant difference, and the null hypothesis was accepted (see Table 4) . Although there was no significant difference in the attitude means of this subscale, the teacher group members from noninvolved schools were inclined to more favorable responses. Of interest was the observation that 77 percent of the noninvolved teacher group enjoyed working in their schools and 83 percent expressed a desire to remain in their present positions (see Appendix E, items 59, 62) . The results for the parent-involved teacher group were 60 and 70 percent respectively. These differences may be attributed to within-school variations, for there was no databased group evidence from which an explanation can be drawn. Attitudes toward the community . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the community as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistically it was shown that a significant difference did exist, and, as a result, the null hypothesis was not accepted (see Table 4) . The teacher group from schools with parental involvement revealed a significantly more positive attitude toward the community than the teacher group from no parent-involved

PAGE 63

52 schools. The most vivid revelations of teacher group differences were found in the items 75, 76, 77, 79, and 81 of the questionnaire (see Appendix E) . The parent-involved teacher group believed more favorably that the community was vitally interested in the school, supportive of curriculum innovation, appreciative of the school's efforts, morally strong, and vitally interested in their children. These observations tend to support related findings from studies cited in Chapter 2 of this study (Cloward & Jones, 1963; Olsen, 1953; Oscarson, 1971) . Total teacher attitudes toward school . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward school as measured by total scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistical analysis of the results from the 90-item teacher attitude scale revealed that there was no significant difference, and the null hypothesis was accepted (see Table 4). In general, relatively favorable attitudes toward school were indicated by the parent-involved and the no parent-involved groups of teachers. There was no data-based evidence to disclose that either group of teachers were adversely affected by the inclusion or exclusion of parental involvement in curriculum development. There was, however, an indication that teachers in parent-involved schools tend to be more aware of community support and

PAGE 64

53 sincerity in matters pertaining to the school and the children. Parent Scale The parent questionnaire, A Parent's View of the School , contained two subscales of import. The total weighted score of items 8-28 presented a measure of parental feeling toward the school. The participation or relationship score included items 29-33 with the exclusion of item 34. Kuder-Richardson No. 20 tests produced reliability coefficients in excess of .80 for both subscales in the involved and noninvolved groups of parents Attitudes toward school . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in parent attitudes toward school as measured by scores on the questionnaire, A Parent's View of the School , in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistically it was calculated that a significant difference did exist, and, as a result, the null hypothesis was not accepted (see Table 5) . The parent group from the schools with parental involvement revealed a significantly more favorable attitude toward the school than the parent group v\7ith children in schools without parental involvement. From an examination of the parent-response summary in Appendix F, it was noted that the involved parent group consistently achieved more

PAGE 65

54 TABLE 5 TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN MEANS FOR PARENT GROUPS IN SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Attitude Number subscales of items Involved group (N = 577) Means SD Noninvolved group (N = 385) Means SD Obtained values of t Toward school 21 76.65 11.38 73.31 11.05 -4.51* Toward participation _6 20.73 5.69 20.85 5.72 ,33 Total attitude 27 97.38 13.16 94.16 12.86 -3.74* scale ^SD = standard deviation. * Critical t value at the .05 level is 1.96 for a twotailed test with 960 degrees of freedom.

PAGE 66

55 favorable attitude scores on 20 of the 21 items. These observations are supported by related findings from studies cited in Chapter 2 of this study (Grobman, 1958; Ahola, 1970) Attitudes toward participatio n. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in parent attitudes toward participation as measured by scores on the questionnaire, A Parent's View of the School , in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistical analysis of the data from this 6-item subscale revealed that there was no significant difference and this resulted in the acceptance of the null hypothesis (see Table 5) . Both parent groups have exhibited similar participatory patterns with their schools (see Appendix F) . It was not possible to identify the nature or purpose of parentschool interactions, for the instrument did not possess these discriminatory powers. However, the data have shown that a very high percentage of both parent groups have established some form of liaison with the school. Total parent attitude toward school . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in " parent attitudes toward school as measured by total scores on the questionnaire, A Parent's View of the School , in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum ""Twenty of 21 item means have real or apparent differences favoring the involved parent group. The probability of this occurring by chance is about .00001.

PAGE 67

56 development. Statistical analysis of the results from the 27-item parent attitude scale revealed that there was a significant difference, and the null hypothesis was not accepted (see Table 5) . The parent group from school communities that have parental involvement in curriculum development has disclosed significantly more favorable attitudes toward the school than the parent group from no parent-involved school communities. Favorable parental attitudes toward the school have been discovered by other investigators in parentinvolved schools, as reported in Chapter 2 of this study (Passow, 1968; Cloward & Jones, 1963; Ahola, 1970). Student Scale The Student Attitude Scale used in this study is a 60-item scale composed of five subscales. These presented measures of student feeling toward self, fellow students, teachers, principal, and the school. The separate measures were statistically treated to determine if any significant difference existed between the means of the parent-involved and no parent-involved student groups. Attitudes regarding self . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in student atti\/ tudes toward self as measured by scores on the Student Attit ude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistical analysis of the data from this 15-item subscale revealed that there was

PAGE 68

57 no significant difference, and the null hypothesis was accepted (see Table 6) . The involved and noninvolved student groups showed little variation in their responses to the items on the acceptance-of-self subscale (see Appendix G) . Attitudes toward fellow students . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in student attitudes toward their fellow students as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistical analysis of the data from this 10-item subscale revealed that there was no significant difference, and, as a result, the null hypothesis was accepted (see Table 6). The involved and noninvolved student groups indicated little variation in their responses to the items on the subscale pertaining to feelings about their fellow students (see Appendix G) . Attitudes toward teachers . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in student attitudes toward teachers as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistical analysis of the data from this 20-item subscale revealed that there was a significant difference, and the null hypothesis was not accepted (see Table 6) . The student group from schools with parental involvement revealed a significantly more favorable attitude

PAGE 69

58 TABLE 6 TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN MEANS FOR STUDENT GROUPS IN SCHOOLS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Attitude subscales Number of items Involved group (N = 595) Means SD^ Noninvolved (N = 401) Means SD Obtained values of t Acceptance of self 15 2.30 5 . 59 2. 95 6.05 1.74 Toward peers 10 1.29 4. 01 1. 58 4.20 1.08 Toward teachers 20 3 . 98 8 . 57 2. 60 5. 37 -2.8 6* Toward principal 9 1. 93 4 . 55 1. 92 4 . 04 -.02 School as whole _6 1. 06 2.99 .95 2. 67 -.61 Total attitude 60 scale 10. 57 19.99 10. 01 15.71 -.47 ^SD = standard deviation . * Critical t value at the .05 level is 1.96 for a twotailed test with 994 degrees of freedom.

PAGE 70

59 toward teachers than the student group from no parentinvolved schools. The most notable observations of student group differences were found in the responses to items 33, 34, 42, 44, and 45 of the questionnaire (see Appendix G) . The parent-involved student group was more inclined to favorably believe that the teachers were sociable, fair in grading, clear in expression, not too easily excited, and encouraged expression of opinion, thoughts, or ideas. The revelation of more favorable student attitudes toward teachers in parent-involved schools was supported by Seay and Crawford (1954), cited in Chapter 2 of this study. Attitudes toward the principal . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in student attitudes toward the principal as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistical analysis of the data from this 9-item subscale indicated that there was no significant difference, and thus the null hypothesis was accepted (see Table 6). The involved and noninvolved student groups have shown little variation in their responses to the items on the subscale dealing with attitudes toward the principal. In general, the responses of both student groups revealed neither highly supportive nor highly critical opinions of the principal (see Appendix G) . Attitudes toward school as a whole . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in

PAGE 71

60 student attitudes toward school as a whole as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistical analysis of the data from this 6-item subscale revealed that there was no significant difference, and the null hypothesis was accepted as stated (see Table 6) . The student groups from involved and noninvolved school have shown little variation in their group responses to the items on the subscale pertaining to their feelings about the school as a whole (see Appendix G) . Total attitudes toward school . It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in student attitudes toward school as measured by the total scores on the Student Attitude Scale questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistical analysis of the results from the 60-item student attitude scale revealed that there was no significant difference and, as a result, the null hypothesis was accepted (see Table 6), As measured by total scores, no significant difference in student attitudes toward school has been statistically detected between the student groups from involved and noninvolved schools. Summary The operational null hypothesis for this study stated that there would be no significant difference in attitudes

PAGE 72

61 toward school revealed by teachers, parents, and students in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Statistical analysis of the total score data obtained from teacher and student groups in schools with and without parental involvement provided support for the acceptance of the null hypothesis stated above. On the other hand, the parent group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward school as measured by total scores on the parents' attitude scale. The operational null hypothesis was examined further through statistical analysis of 13 subscales within the parent, teacher, and student attitude scales. In part, support for the acceptance of the null hypothesis was achieved when it was statistically discovered that: 1. There was no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the teaching profession. 2. There was no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward other teachers. 3. There was no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward students. 4. There was no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the school. 5. There was no significant difference in parent attitudes toward participation. 6. There was no significant difference in student attitudes toward self.

PAGE 73

62 7. There was no significant difference in student attitudes toward fellow students. 8. There was no significant difference in student attitudes toward the principal. 9. There was no significant difference in student attitudes toward the school as a whole. Support for the nonacceptance of the operational null hypothesis was achieved when it was statistically discovered that: 1. The teacher group from noninvolved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward the principal. 2. The teacher group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward the community. 3. The parent group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward the school. 4. The student group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward teachers. In light of the statistical evidence discovered in this study the operational null hypothesis cannot be totally accepted nor can it be considered totally nonacceptable .

PAGE 74

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Summary This study attempted to determine whether there was a significant difference in attitudes toward school revealed by teachers, parents, and students in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Conceptually, one's attitudes toward school may include all perceptions, feelings, beliefs, and interests that are externally and internally related to a specific school or schools in general. In this study an attempt was made to achieve a better understanding of teacher, parent, and student attitudes toward school by examining specific components of their all-encompassing attitudes toward school. These components were found in the form of subscales within three attitude scales, namely, the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire , the Student Attitude Scale , and A Parent ' s View of the School . Founded in the main problem and the contained subscales of the questionnaires, an operational null hypothesis and 16 subordinate hypotheses were created. Operational Null Hypothesis There is no significant difference in attitudes toward 63

PAGE 75

64 school revealed by teachers, parents, and students in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. Subordinate hypotheses 1. There is no significant difference in parent attitudes toward school as measured by total scores on A Parent's View of the School questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development, 2. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward school as measured by total scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 3. There is no significant difference in student attitudes toward school as measured by total scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 4. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the teaching profession as measured by total scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 5. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward other teachers as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 6. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the principal as measured by scores on the

PAGE 76

65 Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum • development . 7. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the children as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 8. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the school as measured by scores on the T eacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 9. There is no significant difference in teacher attitudes toward the community as measured by scores on the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 10. There is no significant difference in student attitudes toward self as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 11. There is no significant difference in student attitudes toward fellow students as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 12. There is no significant difference in student attitudes toward teachers as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development.

PAGE 77

66 13. There is no significant difference in student attitudes toward the principal as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 14. There is no significant difference in student attitudes toward school as a whole as measured by scores on the Student Attitude Scale in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 15. There is no significant difference in parent attitudes toward participation as measured by scores on the questionnaire, A Parent's View of the School , in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development. 16. There is no significant difference in parent attitudes toward school as measured by scores on the questionnaire, A Parent's View of the School , in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development . Design of the Study Limitations 1. This study was confined to an investigation of those elements of teacher, parent, and student attitudes toward school as measured by the three mentioned instruments . 2. The selection of schools was limited to public elementary, junior high or middle schools that have been

PAGE 78

67 in existence for more than two school years and employ 12 or more full-time teachers. 3. Schools that had established Citizens Advisory Councils or Committees within the past school year were excluded from the parent-involved category of schools. 4. Schools that were predominantly populated with children of Caucasion, Negro, or Spanish heritage were not considered as being nonrepresentative of the general public school population. 5. Selected parent-involved schools met the demands of the following criteria: A. Parent or community representatives must be involved in decision-making strategies with school personnel for some portion of curriculum development within the school . B. Parental involvement in curriculum development may be via structured strategies or a combination of structured and informal strategies. C. Participation via structured strategies may include the Citizens Advisory Committee plus one or more of the following possibilities: 1) Representatives participate in planning conferences with the administration. 2) Parents plan and work with teachers within subject fields.

PAGE 79

68 3) A standing lay-faculty curriculum coiranittee . 4) P.T.A. study groups that make genuine contribution to curriculum development. 5) Representatives from community organizations participate in curriculum planning and development. 6) Representatives participate in planning conferences with the faculty. 7) Any other strategy acceptable to the investigator . D. Parental participation must have been operational for a period extending beyond the present school year. Instrumentation The coding of the three instruments followed the same patterns established by previous researchers in the FloridaKellogg Leadership Project, College of Education, University of Florida. The 60-item Student Attitude Scale was designed with 15 items pertaining to attitudes toward self, 10 items on fellow students, 20 items on teachers, 9 items on principal, and 6 items indicating attitudes toward the school as a whole . The 90-item Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire contained 7 items pertaining to attitudes toward the teaching profession, 17 items on other teachers, 18 on the

PAGE 80

69 principal, 16 on students, 16 on the school, and 16 items related to the community. From A Parent's View of the School a measure of attitude toward the school was achieved from items 8-28 inclusive. Items 29-35, excluding 34, gave an indication of participation. P opulation sample The study sites for the investigation were the school districts of Alachua, Dade, Hillsborough, and Orange Counties, State of Florida. Through a search process, seven schools were found that met the criteria established for parental involvement in curriculum development. The five noninvolved schools were randomly selected from the Florida Educational Directory By means of school directories, a stratified random sample of approximately 125 parents was selected in each of the 12 schools involved in this study. Wherever possible, an attempt was made to randomly select samples of approximately 100 students from grades five, six, seven, and eight. In the case of teachers, volunteered responses were encouraged from all due to the numbers involved. Collection of data Anonymous teacher responses were received in sealed, unmarked envelopes. From the noninvolved schools 106

PAGE 81

70 usable replies were received; from the parent-involved schools 145 usable teacher responses were collected by the investigator. Anonymous parent responses were returned in sealed, unmarked envelopes to the school's central office. From the noninvolved schools 385 usable replies were used in this study while the involved schools returned 577 usable parent questionnaires. From 819 student responses received in the involved schools 595 usable, randomly selected replies were used in this study. From 588 student responses obtained in the noninvolved schools 4 01 usable, randomly selected responses were used. Grades five, six, seven, and eight were represented in both student groups. Data analysis Teacher, parent, and student responses were scored, tabulated, and recorded on IBM computer cards. The significance of the difference between means of the involved and noninvolved group results in each subscale was evaluated with the t test. Total scale results were treated similarly. Significant Findings of the Study Statistical analysis of the data obtained from teacher, parent, and student responses in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum development resulted in the following significant discoveries:

PAGE 82

71 1. The parent group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward school as measured by total scores on the parents' attitude scale. > 2. The teacher group from noninvolved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward the principal. 3. The teacher group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward the community. 4. The parent group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward the school. 5. The student group from involved schools revealed significantly more favorable attitudes toward teachers. Conclusions The present study was an effort to determine whether there were significant differences in attitudes toward school revealed by teachers, parents, and students in schools with and without parental involvement in curriculum . development. The results of this study provided support for the following conclusions: 1. Parents who have children in schools with parental involvement in curriculum development had significantly ' more favorable attitudes t-oward school than parents from school communities without parental involvement in curriculum development. It was discovered that some form of parental involvement was common to all schools used in this study. However, parental support and opinions about the .

PAGE 83

72 school were more positive in the schools where parents were actually engaged in some strategy of cooperatively planning curriculum and, to some extent, implementing it. 2. Student attitudes toward teachers in schools where parents are involved in curriculum development were significantly more favorable than the attitudes toward teachers revealed by students in schools where no parents were involved in curriculum development. 3. In the schools where parents are involved in curriculum development teacher attitudes toward the community were significantly more favorable than the attitudes toward the community revealed by teachers in schools where no parents were involved in curriculum development. 4. In the schools where parents were not involved in curriculum development teacher attitudes toward the principal were significantly more favorable than the attitudes toward the principal revealed by teachers in schools where parents were involved in curriculum development. Implications A number of items for consideration by those concerned with parental involvement are implied by the author from his review of the literature, his practice, and from the data of this study. 1. This study and other related studies have indicated that meaningful and purposeful parental involvement in the schools may enhance school-home relationships. Because of

PAGE 84

73 current criticism of the public school system, every educator should seriously consider the positive aspects of having parents involved in causes common to home and school. 2. Traditional patterns of interaction and communication between the home and school have had questionable lasting effects on those concerned. It appears that in schools where parents are frequently and meaningfully involved, parents, educators, and students become more knowledgeable and understanding of each other, the school, and the home. In order to dispel anxiety, mistrust, and other symptoms of faulty relationships, educators must provide the opportunities for parent-teacher interaction on a personal and purposeful basis. Cooperative curriculum planning provides the opportunities. 3. The school community possesses vast resources of knowledge and expertise in the form of parents and other community members. Educators do not possess a mandate on education. As indicated in this study, parents can become a part of the curriculum planning team and can supplement the instructional program. 4. Much has been devoted in human and financial ways to the quest for educational accountability. It is doubtful that success can be achieved through sophisticated management systems and expensive hardward. Public confidence in our schools is more readily gained through meaningful

PAGE 85

74 home-school relationships on the community level. With parental involvement in curriculum development, common commitment to common goals can provide the basis for common confidence. 5. Emerging relationships between school and home are being enhanced through Parent Advisory Councils. These councils or committees can effectively serve their purpose through the encouragement of parental participation in the daily activities of the school. 6. Local educational authorities should carefully examine literature and practices for the benefits that may be accrued from meaningful parental involvement in the school. Policies and practices should be established that will nurture home, school, and community interrelationships. Every avenue of potential success should be explored in order to enhance a sense of community and, above all, effective and meaningful relationships on the learning level. 7. Central legislative authorities are in a position to nurture and support school-community programs through direct financial assistance and consultative services. As the principles of participatory democracy are realistically manifested in cooperative decision-making processes within parent-involved schools, existing legislation must be examined in light of changing roles, needs, and programs within these schools. 8. Teacher education programs should take into consideration the implications of changing home-school

PAGE 86

75 relationships. Competencies expected of teachers to better prepare them to participate with parents for common purposes should be identified and incorporated. Suggestions for Further Study Certain areas of study are suggested by the findings of the present investigation. 1. Evidence in this study indicated that teacher attitudes toward the principal were more favorable in the no parent-involved teacher group. Further research would be required to identify those factors that may be related and possibly responsible for this evidence. Also, a search is necessary to determine the extent to which these results can be generalized. 2. There is an apparent need for an investigation of the principal's operating patterns in schools with and without parental involvement. Determining the relationship of these patterns to teacher and pupil performance variables and to parental involvement patterns within the school may lead to more effective understanding of relatively successful and nonsuccessf ul home-school relationships. 3. Student attitudes toward teachers were signficantly more favorable in the parent-involved group of schools. However, no significant reciprocal response was evident from their teachers. Further study is required with modifications in the present study design. A larger sample of

PAGE 87

76 parent-involved schools with randomly selected teachers may possibly produce different results. 4. There is a need for establishing more definite means of determining the nature and frequency of parental involvement. With specific levels of involvement, more finite patterns may be revealed as teacher, pupil, and parent attitudes are studied in the general school population. 5. With the advent of Parent Advisory Councils, longitudinal studies of teacher, parent, and student attitudes may assist in determining if favorable trends are developing .

PAGE 88

APPENDIX A TRANSMITTAL LETTERS

PAGE 89

TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO TEACHERS TEACHER HUMAN RELATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE DEAR TEACHER: Numerous schools in Florida are cooperating in this research project which is designed to increase our understanding of school-home relationships. The information received may be of benefit to all schools involved, therefore, it would be appreciated if you would thoughtfully respond to each item on the enclosed questionnaire. PLEASE DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE OR ANY OTHER IDENTIFYING MARKS. WE DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THOSE RESPONDING. Please place the completed questionnaire in the blank envelope provided, and SEAL and RETURN IT TO THE SECRETARY WITHIN THE CENTRAL OFFICE OF YOUR SCHOOL. All sealed envelopes will be placed within a container in your school. The opening of the envelopes and the tabulation of the information will take place at the University of Florida, Gainesville. After tabulation, the questionnaires will be destroyed. The results of this study will be presented to the cooperating County Public School systems. PLEASE RETURN WITHIN THREE DAYS. Your cooperation in this study is truly appreciated. Sincerely, Stan P. Dromisky College of Education University of Florida Gainesville. 78

PAGE 90

79 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO PARENTS A PARENT'S VIEW OF THE SCHOOL DEAR PARENT: Numerous schools in Florida are cooperating in this research project which is designed to increase our understanding of school-home relationships. Your child's school is one of the schools chosen for this study. The information received may be of benefit to all schools involved; therefore, it would be appreciated if you would thoughtfully respond to each item on the enclosed questionnaire . PLEASE DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE OR ANY OTHER IDENTIFYING MARKS. WE DO NOT WISH TO KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THOSE RESPONDING. Please place the completed questionnaire in the blank envelope provided, and SEAL and RETURN IT TO THE SCHOOL WITH YOUR CHILD. YOUR CHILD'S TEACHER WILL NOT OPEN THE ENVELOPE. All sealed envelopes will be placed within a container at the school. The opening of the envelopes and the tabulation of the information will take place at the University of Florida, Gainesville. After tabulation, the questionnaires will be destroyed. The results of this study will be presented to the cooperating County Public School systems. PLEASE RETURN WITHIN THREE DAYS. Your cooperation in this study is truly appreciated. Sincerely, Stan P. Dromisky College of Education University of Florida Gainesville .

PAGE 91

80 REQUEST FOR PARENTAL PERMISSION A REQUEST FOR PARENTAL PERMISSION DEAR PARENT : Numerous schools in Florida are cooperating in a research project which is designed to increase our understanding of school-home relationships. The information obtained may be of benefit not only to the schools involved but to schools in general. Your child's school is one of the schools chosen for the study. It is essential that students have the opportunity to contribute. A Student Attitude questionnaire has been prepared for this purpose. It contains items such as: 1. I feel that my teachers are willing to help me if I am having difficulty. 2. I would be happier if I did my work on time. It would be appreciated if you would kindly permit your child to contribute towards this study. THE NAME OF THE CHILD WILL NOT BE NEEDED AND WILL NOT APPEAR ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE. The results will be gathered immediately by the researcher from the University of Florida in Gainesville where the results will be tabulated and the questionnaires destroyed. No teacher or principal will see the completed questionnaires . Your cooperation in this study is truly appreciated. Sincerely, Stan P. Dromisky University of Florida. ^Please detach_and_return to_schoo]^ ]P-^_y9.^L 9]^L^§i' I give permission for to participate in this study. (Parent or Guardian

PAGE 92

APPENDIX B TEACHER HUMAN RELATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 93

TEACHER HUMAN RELATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Name of School City & State Date The following statements are designed to allow you to indicate how you feel about your job and your school. Read each statement and indicate your agreement or disagreement with the statement by writing the appropriate number from the answer scale in the blank provided at the left. It is important that you try to answer each question in terms of how you feel about the statement. Answer Scale (1) Disagree (2) Undecided (3) Agree 1. I believe we should give more attention to teaching the three "R' s . " 2. I do not believe in a lot of "frills" in the classroom. 3. Some children in my classes should never have been passed from the previous grade. 4. Much of the material I have to cover is so dull that my children are bored with it. 5. The teaching profession does not allow me to make full use of my abilities. 6 . Teaching requires that I compromise some of my real values. 7. Teachers are essentially selfish. 8. Teachers here are wonderful to work with. 9. Teachers here are too set in their ways. 10. There is at least one teacher here whose personal habits I simply cannot tolerate. 11. I find it easy to accept everyone on this faculty. 82

PAGE 94

83 Answer Scale (1) Disagree (2) Undecided (3) Agree 12. Some teachers here think they have all the answers. 13. Teachers here willingly accept their share of the responsibilities of the school. 14. Most of our teachers have a real understanding of how to work with children. 15. There are people on this faculty who are a discredit to the teaching profession. 16. I feel as though I "belong" socially and professionally with this faculty. 17. At faculty meetings I feel free to express my opinions because I know that the other teachers will give me a fair hearing even when they disagree with me. _18. Certain faculty members seem to have more influence with the principal than I do. 19. Some teachers are kept on the faculty only because they have influence with powerful people in the community. 20. Teachers here form in groups of personal friends in the lunchroom, at faculty meetings, and the like. 21. This faculty gives a teacher the sense of belonging and being needed. 22. Teachers are jealous of new teachers who join the staff. 23. Teachers on this faculty work well together. 24. Whenever this faculty attacks a problem as a team, they get the job done. 25. The principal never acts impulsively or emotionally . 26. The principal deliberately dodges issues. 27. When teachers oppose policies formulated by the principal they do not hesitate to tell him so.

PAGE 95

84 Answer Scale (1) Disagree (2) Undecided ' (3) Agree 28. The principal has the school well organized and it runs smoothly. 29. I feel that the principal tries to escape or shift to others responsibilities that are rightfully his. 30. The principal leads the faculty into developments which they do not favor when he thinks these will help the school make a good impression. 31. It is difficult to know just what to expect because the principal is always making changes. 32. Certain people on this faculty have more influence over school affairs than the principal does. 33. The principal never calls a teacher down in front of others. 34. During faculty meetings the principal discusses mistakes that individual teachers have made without naming the offending teacher. 35. Teachers feel that they will be penalized in some way if they displease the principal. 36. In faculty meetings the principal is skilled at giving the appearance of agreement when actually there is no agreement. 37. The principal does not usually praise teachers for good work done. 38. Most of the small irritations that disturb teachers in this school are caused by the principal . 39. The principal has favorites among the staff who get special treatment from him. 40. The principal will listen to my ideas. 41. I think our principal is a wonderful person.

PAGE 96

85 Answer Scale (1) Disagree (2) Undecided (3) Agree 42. The principal is genuinely interested in me and what I am doing. 43. There are students in my classes who cannot be taught anything because they are not capable of learning. 44. Students here do not want to study, they only want to have a good time. 45. I have too many children who do not want to learn. 46. Too few of my students are really working up to their ability. 47. My students are very cooperative. 48. Students in this school are very selfish. 49. Our students display plenty of school spirit. 50. Students here are really working together to make this a better school. 51. Students are willing and capable of accepting responsibility . 52. Students here are careless with library books and frequently lose them. 53. I find that my students can be depended upon to do the jobs they have agreed to do. 54. Students here tend to think that the school belongs to them and that we of the faculty just work here. 55. Students in our school are well trained and it shows up in the orderly, quiet way they conduct themselves in rooms, halls, and on the playground. 56. If I were free to choose pupils, I would select all the same students I now have. 57. Too many of our students do not act their age.

PAGE 97

8;6 Answer Scale (1) Disagree (2) Undecided (3) Agree 58. Upperclass students tend to corrupt the younger students by undermining their standards of conduct. 59. Teachers enjoy working in this school. 60. Conditions in this school are static; we do not seem to be making any progress. 61. There is an undercurrent of discontent among faculty members in this school. 62. If I were free to choose, I would remain at this school in my present position. 63. This school is not as good as people think. 64. I would make many changes in this school if I were principal. 65. People outside this school do not know what it is really like. 66. Certain departments get first consideration for funds and materials. 67. We do not have sufficient faculty meetings to allow discussion of all the things that need to be discussed. 68. Too much time is spent discussing petty matters at faculty meetings. 69. This school is organized so that teachers always know what is expected of them. 70. Some teachers here bring pressure on the others to keep things going their way. 71. This school fosters a strong sense of belonging in its teachers. 72. A strong point about our school is the fact that children are given opportunity to develop leadership ability.

PAGE 98

87 Answer Scale (1) Disagree (2) Undecided (3) Agree 73. It is difficult to plan and work with my classes because extracurricular activities take up so much of the children's time. 74. In general I am satisfied with the equipment and materials provided for my department. 75. People who live in this community are vitally interested in the school and what it is trying to do . 76. There are courses we should teach in this school, but the community will not approve. 77. The community fully appreciates the work the school is doing. 78. Some people in this community have too much influence in school affairs. 79. The morals in this community are not as high as they should be . 80. Parents in this community are too strict on their children. _81. Parents in this community are vitally interested in their children. 82. Too many people in this community snoop into other people's affairs. 83. This is the best community I ever worked in. 84. There are certain reasons why I do not feel accepted in this community. 85. This community puts the same standards on the personal life of the teacher as on any other citizen . 86. Unmarried teachers do not feel free to date in this community. 87. Teachers are looked on with respect in this community.

PAGE 99

88 Answer Scale (1) Disagree (2) Undecided (3) Agree 88. Many social organizations, clubs, and the like are not open to teachers in this community. 89. What teachers say and think is heard with respect in this community. 90. The community provides many social opportunities for teachers.

PAGE 100

APPENDIX C A PARENT'S VIEW OF THE SCHOOL

PAGE 101

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA QUESTIONNAIRE A PARENT'S VIEW OF THE SCHOOL DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS. Your school wants to serve you and your children in the best possible way. For that reason, YOUR ANSWERS TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ARE IMPORTANT, We do not want to know the name of the person who answers this questionnaire, so please answer as you really think. THIS IS EASY TO ANSWER. Use pencil or pen in marking your answers. ANSWER EVERY QUESTION. Mark (X) the answer you believe is true for the school sending this questionnaire. Place the completed questionnaire in the blank envelope provided, and SEAL and RETURN IT BY YOUR CHILD. This will make it impossible for the one who answers the questionnaire to be identified. Please return within 3 days. PERSONAL DATA 1. Which parent is answering these questions? (Mark one.) (1) Father (2) Mother (3) Both parents (4) Guardian or other person ] . How many children do you have in the school that sent this questionnaire? . (1) One (2) Two (3) Three (4) Four (5) More than four 90

PAGE 102

91 3. How far do you live from the school? (The distance traveled by your child to school.) (1) Less than 1/2 mile (2) More than 1/2 but less than 1 mile (3) More than 1 but less than 2 miles (4) More than 2 but less than 3 miles (5) More than 3 but less than 4 miles (6) More than 4 but less than 5 miles (7) More than 5. How many miles? 4. How do your children travel to school? (1) Walk (2) Bicycle (3) Driven in family car (4) Ride school bus (5) Drive car (6) Ride city bus (7) Drive in car pool 5. How long have you lived in this school community? (1) Less than 1 year (2) Over 1 but less than 2 years (3) Over 2 but less than 3 years (4) Over 3 but less than 4 years (5) Over 4 but less than 5 years (6) Over 5. How many years? 6. How far did you go in school? (1) No schooling (2) Elementary school (Grades 1-6) (3) Junior high school (Grades 7-9) (4) Senior high school (Grades 10-12) (5) College 7. Please list occupation below: (1) (2) (3) Father's occupation Mother's occupation Occupation (job) of (job) _ (job) _ guardian or other person

PAGE 103

92 HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR LOCAL SCHOOL Please answer all questions. MARK (X) ONLY ONE ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION. 8. In our school, the 3 R's (reading, writing, arithmetic) are taught: (1) Extremely well (2) Better than in most schools (3) As well as in most schools (4) Poorer than in most schools (5) Very poorly 9. The discipline in our school is: (1) Very good (2) Better than in most schools (3) As good as in most schools (4) Poorer than in most schools (5) Very poor 10. Our school lunch program is: (1) Very good (2) Better than in most schools (3) As good as in most schools (4) Poorer than in most schools (5) Very poor 11. In our school, the activity program (Games, sports, clubs, plays, recreation, etc.) is: (1) Very good (2) Better than in most schools (3) As good as in most schools (4) Poorer than in most schools (5) Very poor 12. The amount of interest teachers show in my child is: (1) Very good (2) Good (3) Fair (4) Poor (5) Very poor 13. What my child is learning in school meets his present needs : (1) Very well (2) Fairly well (3) To some extent (4) Very little (5) Not at all

PAGE 104

93 14. What my child is learning in school will meet his future needs : (1) Very well (2) Fairly well (3) To some extent (4) Very little (5) Not at all 15. I think the parent's money or social standing determines the way teachers treat a child in our school: (1) Not at all (2) Only slightly (3) To some extent (4) More than in most schools (5) Very much 16. My child is treated fairly and kindly by other pupils in school : (1) Always (2) Usually (3) About half the time (4) Seldom (5) Never 17. Our school program is: (1) Exactly right (2) About right (3) Too modern (4) Too old fashioned 18. I rate the total program of our school as: (1) Very good (2) Good (3) Fair (4) Poor (5) Very poor 19. The kind of job the teachers in our school do is: (1) Very good (2) Good (3) Fair (4) Poor (5) Very poor 20. The kind of job our principal does is: (1) Very good (2) Good (3) Fair (4) Poor (5) Very poor

PAGE 105

94 21. The grading system used in our school, to mark ray child's work is: (1) Very good (2) Good (3) Fair (4) Poor (5) Very poor 22. The moral and character training my child receives in our school is : (1) Very good (2) Good (3) Fair (4) Poor (5) Very poor 23. This is how I feel about the information I get concerning our school: (1) Very satisfied (2) Satisfied (3) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (4) ______ Dissatisfied (5) Very dissatisfied 24. I believe the teachers should be paid: (1) Much more (2) Some more (3) No change. They are paid about right now. 25. In order to pay teachers more, I would be willing to pay: (1) A moderate increase in taxes (2) A slight increase in taxes (3) No increase in taxes 26. In order to have better school buildings, I would be willing to pay: (1) A moderate increase in taxes (2) A slight increase in taxes (3) No increase in taxes 27. In order to have better equipment and supplies in our school, I would be willing to pay the following increase in my taxes : (1) Large (2) Moderate (3) Small (4) None at all

PAGE 106

95 28. I would be willing to attend meetings to study and advise on school problems: (1) Frequently (2) Some of the time (3) Seldom (4) Never 29. I know the principal of the local school: (1) Extremely well (2) Well enough to talk to (3) When I see him or her (4) I don't know him or her 30. I know at least one of my child's teachers: (1) Extremely well (2) Well enough to talk to (3) When I see him or her (4) I don't know them 31. I have gone to the local school this past year: (1) Several times (2) Once or twice (3) Not at all 32. During the past year, I have talked with our principal (1) Several times (2) Once or twice (3) Not at all 33. During this past year, I have talked with at least one of our school teachers : (1) Several times (2) Once or twice (3) Not at all 34. Community groups in which I am active use the skills of teachers or pupils from our school: (1) Often (2) Some of the time (3) Seldom (4) Never 35. During the past year, I have actively helped with some school or community activity (P.T.A., Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, grade mother, etc.): (1) Often (2) More than once (3) Once (4) Not at all

PAGE 107

96 36. I get the best information about the school from (Mark one) : (1) Newspaper (2) Radio and TV (3) Pupils (4) Parents (5) Teacher's notes and conferences (6) • Printed information (7) P.T.A. (8) School visits (9) Other Please name: 37. I would like to have more information about (Mark more than one if you wish) : (1) The activity program (includes music, games, sports, clubs, plays, etc.) (2) How money is spent (3) The guidance in our school (4) Discipline in our school (5) What children study (6) Methods of teaching (7) My child's progress (8) Other Please name: Please answer each of the following questions briefly: 38. What experience or single incident has given you the most favorable feeling toward your school? 39. What experience or single incident has given you the most unfavorable feeling toward your school?

PAGE 108

97 40. Write the one suggestion you consider most important for improvement of your school if you feel any improvement is needed. THANK YOU Place in the blank envelope, seal, and return to the local school within 3 days.

PAGE 109

APPENDIX D STUDENT ATTITUDE SCALE

PAGE 110

PUPIL HUMAN RELATIONS STUDY Student Attitude Scale ' UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Students of this school, like students of all schools, have different feelings about things. This booklet is for you to express your feelings toward yourself, other students, your teachers, your school administration, and your school as a whole. This is NOT a test. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers, as such. EVERY ANSWER THAT TELLS HOW YOU FEEL IS A RIGHT ANSWER FOR YOU. By marking how you feel about each statement, you can help your school become a better school. Fill in the following blanks: Date_ Boy or Girl School Grade and Section Parent's occupation_ DIRECTIONS : Draw a circle around MT is the statement is mostly true or true for you. Draw a circle around S if the statement is about half true and half false for you. Draw a circle around MF if the statement is mostly false or false for you. MT S MF 1. I think I am too shy. MT S MF 2.1 often feel the need to make excuses for the way I act. MT S MF 3.1 often change the way I do things or what I believe in order to please someone else. 99

PAGE 111

100 It worries me to think that some of the people I know may dislike me. I feel that I have little to give to the helping of others. I feel that I might be a failure if I don't make certain changes in my life. When meeting a person for the first time , I want to know at once whether he or she likes me. Although people sometimes praise me, I feel that I do not really earn the praise. I become afraid when I think of something I have done wrong or might do wrong in the future. I could be happier if I didn't have certain faults or fears about myself. I am not at ease at parties and other social affairs. I don't really know what I want out of life. I feel that I am too often left out of things. When my feelings change from sad to happy and happy to sad, I do not know why . I feel unhappy much of the time. I dislike several of my classmates. Members of my class do not know each other well. Students at this school are snobbish or "stuck-up." Many of my classmates do not act as old as their age. A few students at this school run all the student affairs.

PAGE 112

101 MT S MF 21. Many boys and girls at this school feel that they do not "belong" here. MT S MF 22. There is little effort at this school to make new students feel "at home." MT S MF 23. Students at this school do not try to help other students who are in trouble. MT S MF 24. I find it hard to take a real interest in the activities of some of my friends. MT S MF 25. When I am first getting to know a person of my age, I compare him or her with myself to see whether I am better or not as good as this person. MT S MF 2 6. I think that my teachers in general will not listen enough to student ideas. MT S MF 27. I feel that few of my teachers are willing to help one student at a time (that is to help a student individually) . MT S MF 28. Some of my teachers favor girls more than boys. MT S MF 29. Some of my teachers favor boys more than girls. MT S MF 30. Not many of my teachers are up to date (as they are behind the times) in what they teach and how they teach it. MT S MF 31. I feel that many of my teachers think I know less than I do know. MT S MF 32. It seems to me that some of my teachers often talk unkindly to students. MT S MF 33. It seems to me that several of my teachers are nervous and easily excited. MT S MF 34. Some of my teachers are always using words that are too big for me to understand . MT S MF 35. I believe that most of my teachers are too strict. MT S MF 36. My teachers expect too much of me.

PAGE 113

102 MT S MF 37. I believe that I have a teacher who would give a higher grade because a student complimented him or her or did a favor for the teacher. MT S MF 38. I hate at least one of my teachers. MT S MF 39. I think that some of my teachers seem to feel that they are always right and the student is always wrong. MT S MF 40. I believe that some of my teachers try to make students afraid of them. MT S MF 41. It seems to me that some of my teachers are inclined to be "bossy." MT S MF 42. I feel that none of my teachers grade fairly. MT S MF 43. I believe that most of my teachers should be more pleasant and cheerful. MT S MF 44. I think that most of ray teachers would rather not see and talk to me when school is out. MT S MF 45. In many of my classes I feel that the teachers do not want me to express my real opinion, thoughts, or ideas. MT S MF 46. I feel that the principal does not like suggestions from the students. MT S MF 47. I think the principal is too strict. MT S MF 48. I would not go to the principal's office to talk to him unless I was made to go. MT S MF 49. I believe there are too many rules in this school. MT S MF 50. I don't believe the principal would want to help me with a personal problem. MT S MF 51. It seems to me that if a student is from a family who has more money, or is considered more important, that he or she will get better treatment from the principal.

PAGE 114

103 MT S MF 52. I believe this school would be run just as well without our principal. MT S MF 53. I don't know what our principal does to make this school better. MT S MF 54. There are many things about my principal that I wish he or she would improve. MT S MF 55. I believe this school could be run much better. MT S MF 56. It seems to me that my textbooks are "behind the times" or not up to date. MT S MF 57. I don't believe that any of my courses or subjects will be useful to me in the work I might do when I finish school. MT S MF 58. I think there is little opportunity or chance for students in this school of different grades to meet and get to know each other. MT S MF 59. I think there are too many things that our school organizations are not allowed to do. MT S MF 60. At this school art exhibits, musical programs, assembly programs, and the like are not put on to help students learn but to show them off.

PAGE 115

APPENDIX E COMPARISON OF TEACHER RESPONSES ON TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRES FROM SCHOOL GROUPS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

PAGE 116

Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire This 90-item form contains 7 items pertaining to attitudes toward the teaching profession, 17 items on other teachers, 18 on the principal, 16 on pupils, 16 on the school, and 16 items related to the community. 105

PAGE 117

APPENDIX E COMPARISON OF TEACHER RESPONSES ON TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRES FROM SCHOOL GROUPS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Involved Noninvolved I tern group group (N = 145) (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent Attitudes Toward Teaching Profession 1. Emphasis 3 R's Agree 95 65 78 73 Undercided 14 10 7 7 Disagree 36 25 21 20 Mean : -0. 41 Mean : -0. 54 2. Against "frills" Agree 39 27 27 25 Undecided 37 26 28 27 Disagree 69 47 51 48 Mean : 0.20 Mean 0. 23 3. Question promotion policy Agree 65 45 58 55 Undecided 20 14 14 13 Disagree 60 41 34 32 Mean : -0.05 Mean : -0. 23 Complete and exact wording of questions can be found in the Teacher Human Relations Questionnaire, Appendix B. 106

PAGE 118

107 Item Involved group (N = 145) Noninvolved group (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent A 4 . Dull teaching material Agree 12 8 20 19 Undecided 14 10 12 11 Disagree inn liy 82 74 70 Mean : 0.74 Mean : 0. 51 r; Profession inhibits ability Agree 37 25 16 15 Undecided 20 14 19 18 i-'Xociyi. tit: o 0 61 71 67 Mean : 0.35 Mean : 0.52 6 Compromise values Agree 54 37 39 37 Undecided 9 6 16 15 Disagree 82 57 51 48 Mean : 0.21 Mean : 0.11 7. Teachers are selfish Agree 7 5 13 12 Undecided 17 12 17 16 Disagree 121 83 76 72 Mean: 0.79 Mean : 0.59 Attitudes Toward Other Teachers 8, Teachers are wonderful Agree Undecided Disagree 97 28 20 67 19 14 73 20 13 69 19 12 Mean: 0.53 Mean: 0.57

PAGE 119

108 Involved Noninvolved Ttpm group group . (N = 145) (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 9 . Set in ways Agree 23 16 21 20 Undecided 30 21 21 20 Disagree 92 63 64 60 Mean: 0.4 8 Mean: 0.41 10. Cannot tolerate teacher Agree 40 27 32 30 Undecided 14 10 13 12 Disagree 91 63 61 58 Mean: 0.35 Mean: 0.27 11. Accept everyone Agree 89 61 66 62 Undecided 24 17 13 12 Disagree 32 22 27 26 Mean: 0.39 Mean: 0.37 12. Teachers conceited Agree 58 40 47 44 Undecided .18 12 17 16 Disagree 69 48 42 40 Mean: 0.08 Mean: -0.05 13. Teachers share Agree 87 60 59 56 Undecided 31 21 19 18 Disagree 27 19 28 26 Mean: 0.41 Mean: 0.29

PAGE 120

109 Item Involved group (N = 145) Noninvolved group (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 14. Understanding of children Agree 109 75 78 74 Undecided 21 15 14 13 ui s agree 15 X U Mean : 0.65 Mean : 0. 60 15. Discredit to profession Agree 32 22 26 25 Undecided 14 10 15 14 Disagree 99 68 65 61 Mean : 0.46 Mean : 0.37 16. Feeling of belonging Agree 91 63 74 70 Undecided 31 21 16 15 Disagree 23 16 16 15 Mean : 0.47 Mean : 0. 55 17. Express opinions freely Agree 91 63 83 78 Undecided 31 21 11 11 Disagree 23 16 12 11 Mean : 0.47 Mean : 0. 67 18. Members influence principal Agree 65 45 39 37 Undecided 18 12 14 13 Disagree 62 43 53 50 Mean : -0.02 Mean : 0.13

PAGE 121

110 Involved Noninvolved Item group group (N = 145) (N = 106) Cases Fer cen u C3. SG S 15 d O T*> 4" 1 Ci Influential friends Agree 18 12 16 15 Undecided 24 17 22 21 Disagree 103 71 68 64 Mean : 0.59 Mean : 0.49 z u . Teachers have cliques Agree 64 44 47 44 Undecided 10 7 14 13 Disagree 71 49 45 43 Mean : 0.05 Mean : -0.02 21 . Faculty acceptance Agree 87 61 82 77 Undecided 34 23 13 12 Disagree 24 16 11 11 Mean: 0.45 Mean : 0.67 Jealous of new teachers Agree 7 5 8 8 Undecided 21 14 13 12 Disagree 117 81 85 80 Mean : 0.76 Mean : 0.73 23. Teachers work together Agree 91 63 83 78 Undecided 36 25 15 14 Disagree 18 12 8 8 Mean : 0.50 Mean : 0. 71

PAGE 122

Ill Item Involved group (N = 145) Noninvolved group (N = 106) "P o r~ n t" \^ ^A. w-/ * — tJ Percent 24. Effective team work Agree 110 76 95 90 Undecided 20 14 7 6 Disagree 15 10 4 4 Mean : 0.65 Mean: 0. 86 Attitudes Toward Principal 25 . Principal not impulsive Agree 74 51 65 61 Undecided 37 26 25 24 Disagree 34 23 16 15 Mean : 0 . ZO Mean : U . 4 o 26 . Principal dodges issues Agree 24 16 18 17 Undecided 27 19 15 14 Disagree 94 65 73 69 Mean : 0.48 Mean : 0 . 52 27 . Policies can be criticized Agree 54 37 66 62 Undecided 38 27 27 26 Disagree 53 36 13 12 Mean : 0.01 Mean : 0.50 28. School functions well Agree 114 79 80 75 Undecided 18 12 18 17 Disagree 13 9 8 8 Mean: 0.70 Mean : 0. 68

PAGE 123

112 Item Involved group (N = 145) Noninvolved group (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 29. Principal irresponsible Agree 20 14 21 20 Undecided 16 11 15 14 Disagree 109 75 70 66 Mean : n CI U . D X Mean : U . D 30. Unfavorable leadership Agree D Z 36 23 22 Undecided 34 23 30 28 Disagree 59 41 53 50 Mean : u . U D u . Z 0 31. Principal unpredictable Agree 15 10 5 5 Undecided 15 10 15 14 Disagree 115 80 86 81 Mean: 0.69 Mean : 0.76 32. Principal not true leader Agree 17 12 16 15 Undecided 16 11 13 12 Disagree 112 77 77 73 Mean: 0.66 Mean: 0.58 33. Principal never degrades Agree 83 57 90 85 Undecided 17 12 6 6 Disagree 45 31 10 9 Mean : 0.26 Mean : 0.75

PAGE 124

113 Item Involved group (N = 145) Noninvolved group (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 34. Principal discusses mistakes Agree 80 55 53 50 Undecided 23 16 10 9 Disagree 42 T Q 4 i Mean : -0.26 Mean : -0. 09 35. Teachers feel penalized Agree 49 34 11 10 Undecided 34 23 21 20 Disagree 62 43 74 70 Mean : 0. 09 Mean : 0 . 59 36. Principal deceptive Agree 33 23 19 18 Undecided 44 30 49 46 Disagree 68 47 38 36 Mean : 0.24 Mean : 0 . 18 37. Deserving teachers not praised Agree 20 14 15 14 Undecided 19 13 10 10 Disagree 106 73 81 76 Mean : 0. 59 Mean : 0. 62 38. Principal irritates teachers Agree 18 13 10 9 Undecided 31 21 17 16 Disagree 96 66 79 75 Mean : 0.54 Mean : 0. 65

PAGE 125

114 Involved Noninvolved Item group group (N = 145) (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 39. Principal has favorites Agree 34 23 21 20 Undecided 21 15 23 22 Disagree y 0 62 62 58 Mean: 0. 39 Mean : 0.39 40. Principal listens to teachers Agree 115 79 93 88 Undecided 21 15 11 10 Disagree 9 6 2 2 Mean : 0.73 Mean : 0.86 41. Principal is wonderful Agree 100 69 74 70 Undecided 36 25 28 26 Disagree 9 6 4 4 Mean: 0.63 Mean : U . b b 42. Interested in teachers Agree 100 70 72 68 Undecided 34 23 24 23 Disagree 11 7 10 . 9 Mean : 0. 63 Mean : 0 .58 Attitudes Toward Children 43. Students incapable of learning Agree 24 17 13 12 Undecided 16 11 8 8 Disagree 105 72 85 80 Mean : 0.56 Mean : 0. 68

PAGE 126

115 Item Involved group (N = 145) Noninvolved group (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 44. Students not studious Agree 10 7 13 12 Undecided 17 12 16 15 Disagree 118 81 77 73 Mean: n 74 0 60 45. Many don't want to learn Agree 20 14 17 16 Undecided 17 12 10 9 Disagree 108 '74 79 75 Mean : 0 61 1 1\S CXXL • 0 58 46. Students underachieving Agree 40 27 36 34 Undecided 17 12 16 15 Disagree 88 61 54 51 Mean : 0 47. Students are cooperative Agree 100 69 78 73 Undecided 28 19 21 20 Disagree 17 12 7 7 Mean : 0.57 Mean : 0.67 48. Students are selfish Agree 15 10 7 7 Undecided 25 17 17 16 Disagree 105 73 82 77 Mean : 0. 62 Mean : 0.71

PAGE 127

116 Item Involved group (N = 145) Noninvolved group (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 49. School spirit displayed Agree 81 56 66 62 Undecided 37 26 28 27 Disagree 27 18 12 11 Mean : 0.39 Mean : 0. 51 50. Working for better school Agree 75 52 57 54 Undecided 44 31 41 39 Disagree 26 17 8 7 Mean : 0. 34 Mean : 0.46 51. Students accept responsibility Agree 98 67 72 68 Undecided 32 23 24 23 Disagree 15 10 10 9 Mean : 0. 57 Mean : 0.58 52. Students mishandle books Agree 32 22 31 29 Undecided 33 23 32 30 Disagree 80 55 43 41 Mean : 0.32 Mean : 0.11 53. Students dependable Agree 104 72 71 67 Undecided 21 14 22 21 Disagree 20 14 13 12 Mean : 0.58 Mean : 0. 55

PAGE 128

117 Item Involved group (N = 145) Noninvolved group (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 54. Students self -centered Agree 18 12 10 10 36 25 29 27 Disagree 91 63 67 63 Mean: U . dO Mean : 0.54 55. Students self -disciplined Agree 50 34 33 31 Undecided 33 23 25 24 Disagree 62 43 48 45 Mean : U • U 0 Mean : — u . 56 . Accept present students Agree 47 32 48 45 Undecided 32 22 16 15 Disagree 66 46 42 40 Mean : -0 . 13 Mean : 0.06 57. Students act immaturely Agree 42 29 44 41 Undecided 23 17 20 19 Disagree 80 54 42 40 Mean: 0. 26 Mean : -0.02 58. Seniors undermine juniors Agree 26 18 22 21 Undecided 33 23 21 20 Disagree 86 59 63 59 Mean : 0.41 Mean : 0.39

PAGE 129

118 Involved Noninvolved T4-pni group group : (N = 145) (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent Attitudes Toward School 59. Teachers enjoy school Agree 8 7 Undecided 41 Disagree 17 Mean: 60. Conditions are static 60 82 77 28 23 22 12 1 1 0.4 8 Mean: 0.76 Agree 9 6 5 5 Undecided 20 14 13 12 Disagree 116 80 88 83 Mean : 0 .75 Mean : 0 .78 61. Undercurrent of discontent Agree 41 28 18 17 Undecided 31 22 18 17 Disagree 73 50 70 66 Mean: 0 . 22 Mean : 0 .49 62. Prefer present position Agree 101 70 88 83 Undecided 20 14 8 8 Disagree 24 16 10 9 Mean : 0, . 53 Mean : 0 .74 63. School has false image Agree 21 14 12 11 Undecided 30 21 16 15 Disagree 94 65 78 74 Mean: 0.50 Mean: 0.62

PAGE 130

119 Item Involved group (N = 145) Noninvolved group (N = 106) Cases p p» Tf-' £i n -h Pa Q oc; V_Cl o c o v-f-
PAGE 131

120 Involved Noninvolved Item group group (N = 145) (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 69 Teachers aware of expectations 70 71. 72, 73 Agree 90 62 61 58 Undecided 27 19 28 26 Disagree 28 19 17 16 Mean : 0.43 Mean : 0 .42 Some teachers pressured Agree 35 24 30 28 Undecided 25 17 0 n z, u Disagree 85 59 56 53 Mean : 0.34 Mean: 0 .25 Fosters feeling of belonging Agree 91 63 67 63 Undecided 30 21 Zb 25 Disagree 24 16 13 12 Mean : 0.46 Mean : 0, .51 Leadership training for children Agree 104 72 69 65 Undecided 24 16 22 21 Disagree 17 12 15 14 Mean : 0.60 Mean: 0. ,51 Re. extra-curricular activities Agree 22 15 16 15 Undecided 19 13 10 9 Disagree 104 72 80 75 Mean : 0.57 Mean : 0. 60

PAGE 132

121 Item Involved Noninvolved group group (N = 145) (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 74. Satisfied with equipment Agree 113 78 65 61 Undecided 8 5 12 11 Disagree 24 17 29 28 Mean: 0.61 Mean: 0.34 Attitudes Toward Community 75. People interested in school Agree 107 74 49 46 Undecided 29 20 31 29 Disagree 9 6 26 25 Mean: 0.68 Mean: 0.22 76. Community opposes courses Agree 17 12 19 18 Undecided ' 23 16 37 35 Disagree 105 72 50 47 Mean: 0.61 Mean: 0.29 77. Community appreciates school Agree 89 61 39 37 Undecided 33 23 41 39 Disagree 23 16 26 24 Mean: 0.4 6 Mean: 0.12 78. Community influences school Agree 26 18 18 17 Undecided 47 32 38 36 Disagree 72 50 50 47 Mean: 0.32 Mean: 0.30

PAGE 133

122 Item Involved group (N = 145) Noninvolved group (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 79. Community morals questionable Agree 23 16 26 24 Undecided 28 19 39 37 Disagree 9 4 6 5 41 39 Mean: 0.4 9 Mean : 0.14 80. Parents too strict Agree 3 2 3 3 Undecided 25 17 19 18 Disagree 117 81 84 79 Mean: 0.79 Mean : 0.76 81. Parents interested in children Agree 105 72 41 39 Undecided 27 19 39 37 Disagree 13 9 26 24 Mean: 0.63 Mean : 0 . 14 82. Many parents snoopy Agree 23 16 16 15 Undecided 46 32 58 55 Disagree 76 52 32 30 Mean: 0.37 Mean : 0.15 83. Community is best Agree 70 48 33 31 Undecided 40 28 44 42 Disagree 35 24 29 27 Mean: 0.24 Mean: 0.04

PAGE 134

123 Involved Noninvolved Item group group ^^^^ (N = 145) (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 84. Do not feel accepted Agree 18 12 13 12 Undecided 14 10 20 19 Disagree 113 78 73 69 Mean: 0.6 6 Mean: 0.57 85. Similar standards imposed Agree 82 56 46 43 Undecided 43 30 39 37 Disagree 20 14 21 20 Mean: 0.4 3 Mean: 0.24 86. Single teachers not free to date Agree 9 6 6 6 Undecided 40 28 38 36 Disagree 96 66 62 58 Mean: 0.60 Mean: 0.53 87. Community respects teachers Agree 100 69 60 57 Undecided . . 34 23 36 34 Disagree .11 8 10 9 Mean: 0.61 Mean: 0.47 88. Clubs not open to teachers Agree 6 4 10 10 Undecided 41 28 32 30 Disagree 98 68 64 60 Mean: 0.6 3 Mean: 0.51

PAGE 135

124 Involved Noninvolved group group ^^^"^ (N = 145) (N = 106) Cases Percent Cases Percent 89. Teacher's message respected Agree 83 57 41 39 Undecided 46 32 48 45 Disagree 16 11 17 16 Mean : 0 .46 Mean : 0.23 Social opportunities available Agree 41 28 20 19 Undecided 57 39 37 35 Disagree 47 33 49 46 Mean: -0.04 Mean: -0.27

PAGE 136

APPENDIX F COMPARISON OF PARENT RESPONSES ON PARENT QUESTIONNAIRES FROM SCHOOL GROUPS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

PAGE 137

APPENDIX F COMPARISON OF PARENT RESPONSES ON PARENT QUESTIONNAIRES FROM SCHOOL GROUPS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Involved Noninvolved Item group group (N = 577) (N = 385) Cases Percent Cases Percent 8. How well 3 R's taught^ (1) Extremely well 117 20 47 12 (2) Better than most 17 0 29 79 20 (3) Good as most 262 46 226 59 (4) Poorer than most 22 4 22 6 (5) Very poor 4 1 11 3 Mean : 3 .65 Mean : 3 .34 Opinion of school discipline (1) Very good 160 28 72 19 (2) Better than most 142 24 84 22 (3) Good as most 240 42 200 52 (4) Poorer than most 25 4 . 19 5 (5) Very poor 10 2 10 2 Mean : 3 .72 Mean : 3.49 Opinion of school lunches (1) Very good 144 25 105 28 (2) Better than most 107 19 59 15 (3) Good as most 285 49 192 50 (4) Poorer than most 28 5 16 4 (5) Very poor 13 2 13 3 Mean : 3 .59 Mean : 3.59 Complete and exact wording of questions and answers can be found in A Parent's View of the School questionnaire. Appendix C. 126

PAGE 138

127 Item Involved group (N = 577) Noninvolved group (N = 385) Cases Percent Cases Percent 11. Opinion of activity program (1) Very good 194 34 122 32 (2) Better than most 112 19 70 18 (3) Good as most 220 38 153 40 (4) Poorer than most 35 6 32 8 (5) Very poor 16 3 8 2 Mean : 3.75 Mean : 3. 69 12. Teacher interest in child (1) Very good 268 46 122 32 (2) Good 203 35 148 38 (3) Fair 96 17 97 25 (4) Poor 5 1 14 4 (5) Very poor 5 1 4 1 Mean: 4.25 Mean : 3.96 13. Meeting present needs (1) Very well 240 42 118 31 (2) Fairly well 221 38 .1. VJ -L (3) To some extent 92 16 79 20 (4) Very little 20 3 27 7 (5) Not at all 4 1 0 0 Mean : 4.17 Mean : 3.97 14. Meeting future needs. (1) Very well 218 38 104 27 (2) Fairly well 226 39 175 46 (3) To some extent 111 19 82 21 (4) Very little 17 3 21 5 (5) Not at all 5 1 3 1 Mean : 4.1 Mean : 3.92

PAGE 139

123 Involved Noninvolved Item group group (N = 577) (N = 385) Cases Percent Cases Percent 15. Effect of social position (1) Not at all 294 51 197 52 (2) Only slightly 118 20 74 19 (3) To some extent 131 23 90 23 (4) More than most 15 7 2 (5) Very much 19 •? 1 7 A Mean : 4. 13 Mean : 4. 11 Peer treatment of child (1) Always 122 22 77 20 (2) Usually 393 68 259 67 (3) About half the time 48 9 4 ? 1 1 (4) Seldom 8 1 A. 7 o (5) Never 6 1 X n U u Mean : 4. 07 Mean : 4. 03 Opinion of school program (1) Exactly right 3 1 0 0 (2) About right 80 14 30 8 (3) Too modern 408 70 299 77 (4) Old fashioned 86 15 56 15 Mean : 2. 85 Mean : 2. 79 Rating total program (1) Very good 177 31 69 18 (2) Good 290 50 198 52 (3) Fair 96 16 101 26 (4) Poor 10 2 12 3 (5) Very poor 4 1 5 1 Mean : 4. 08 Mean : 3. 82

PAGE 140

129 Involved Non involved Item group group (N = 577) (N = 385) Cases Percent Cases Percent 19 . Teacher effectiveness (1) Very good 215 37 96 25 (2) Good 256 45 189 49 (3) Fair" 92 16 88 23 (4) Poor 14 2 9 2 (5) Very poor 0 0 3 1 Mean : 4.16 Mean : 3.95 9 n z u . Principal effectiveness very gooa 228 39 126 33 (2) Good 237 41 177 46 (3) Fair 91 16 67 17 (4) Poor 12 2 11 3 (5) Very poor 9 2 4 1 Mean : 4. 15 Mean : 4.06 Opinion of grading system (1) Very good 148 26 72 19 (2) Good 282 49 168 44 (3) Fair 107 19 94 24 (4) Poor 26 4 q (5) Very poor 14 2 17 4 Mean : 3.91 Mean: 3.63 22. Character training of child (1) Very good 156 27 86 22 (2) Good 273 47 180 47 (3) Fair 124 22 82 21 (4) Poor 20 3 29 8 (5) Very poor 4 1 8 2 Mean : 3.97 Mean : 3.80

PAGE 141

130 Item Involved group (N = 577) Noninvolved group (N = 385) \^ ci o CI o vz; o y f~* vi +" 23. (1) Very satisfied 129 22 57 15 (2) Satisfied 296 51 200 52 (3) Neither-nor 109 19 93 24 (4) Dissatisfied 39 7 29 7 (5) Very dissatisfied 4 1 6 2 Mf=» ^ n • 3 88 1 ICdl 1 • 3 71 24. About teacher's salaries (1) Much more 189 33 106 28 (2) Some more 255 44 154 40 (3) No change 133 23 125 32 1^1 1dl i • iutrctXi. • 25. Taxes for teacher salaries (1) Moderate increase 99 17 44 11 (2) Slight increase 243 42 146 38 (3) No increase . 235 41 195 51 rican . Mean : Z . Z ± 26. Taxes for better buildings X ^ D u (2) Slight increase 274 47 186 48 (3) No increase 217 38 149 39 • Mean: 2.54 Mean : 2.49 27. Taxes for better equipment (1) Large increase 15 3 10 3 (2) Moderate increase 168 29 104 27 (3) Small increase 233 40 156 40 (4) No increase 161 28 115 30 Mean : 2.79 Mean : 2.72

PAGE 142

131 Involved Noninvolved Item group group (N = 577) (N = 385) Cases Percent Cases Percent 28. Willingness to attend meetings (1) Frequently 110 19 75 19 (2) Some time 368 64 241 63 (3) Seldom 74 13 43 11 (4) Never 25 4 26 7 Mean : 3 .16 Mean : 3.14 29. Acquaintance with principal (1) Extremely well 38 7 21 5 (2) Well enough to talk 240 42 164 43 (3) Recognize him 190 33 133 35 (4) Don't know him 109 18 67 17 Mean : 3 .17 Mean : 3.19 30. Acquaintance with teacher (1) Extremely well 145 25 86 22 (2) Well enough to talk 323 56 212 55 (3) Recognize him 66 12 56 15 (4) Don't know him 43 7 31 8 Mean : 3.91 Mean : 3.84 31. Visits to school (1) Several times 360 62 240 62 (2) Once or twice 182 32 121 32 (3) Not at all 35 6 24 6 Mean : 4.12 Mean : 4.12 32. Talks with principal (1) Several times 107 18 96 25 (2) Once or twice 223 39 148 38 (3) Not at all 247 43 141 37 Mean : 2.51 Mean : 2.77

PAGE 143

132 Involved Noninvolved Item group group (N = 577) (N 385) Cases Percent Cases Percent 33. Talks with teacher (1) Several times 335 58 220 57 (2) Once or twice 197 34 128 33 (3) Not at all 45 8 37 10 Mean : 4.0 Mean : 3.95 35. Participation in activities (1) Often 141 25 90 23 (2) More than once 138 24 100 26 (3) Once 89 15 53 14 (4) Not at all 209 36 142 37 Mean: 3.0 Mean: 2.99

PAGE 144

APPENDIX G COMPARISON OF STUDENT RESPONSES ON STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES FROM SCHOOL GROUPS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

PAGE 145

APPENDIX G COMPARISON OF STUDENT RESPONSES ON STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES FROM SCHOOL GROUPS WITH AND WITHOUT PARENTAL INVOLVMENT Involved Noninvolved Item group group (N = 595) (N = 401) Cases Percent Cases Percent Acceptance of Self Too shy^ MT^ 76 13 63 16 S 221 37 131 33 MF 298 50 207 51 Mean: 0.3 7 Mean: 0.3 6 2. Need to make excuses MT 119 S 183 MF 293 3. Change to please others MT 17 5 S 233 MF 187 20 70 18 31 125 31 49 204 51 0.2 9 Mean: 0.34 29 137 34 39 115 29 32 149 37 Mean : Mean: 0.02 Mean: 0.03 ^Complete and exact wording of questions can be found in the Student Attitude Scale questionnaire, Appendix D. MT Mostly true or false. S = About half-true and half -false. MF = Mostly false or false. 134

PAGE 146

135 Item Involved group (N = 595) Noninvolved group (N 401) Cases Percent Cases Percent 4. Worried about being disliked if MT 204 34 129 32 S 172 29 123 31 MF 219 37 149 37 Mean : 0.03 Mean : 0.05 5. Little to give to others MT 129 22 87 22 S 162 27 99 25 MF 304 51 215 53 Mean : r\ on u . 2y Mean : 0 . 32 6. Might be a failure MT 181 30 118 29 S 170 29 120 30 MF 244 41 163 41 Mean 0 . 11 Mean : 0.11 7 . Insecure with strangers MT 202 34 97 24 S 165 28 100 25 MF 228 38 204 51 Mean : 0.04 , Mean : 0.27 8. Cannot accept praise MT 136 23 132 33 S 289 48 169 42 MF 170 29 100 25 Mean : 0.06 Mean : -0. 08

PAGE 147

136 Item Involved group (N = 595) Noninvolved group (N = 401) Cases Percent Cases Percent 9. Unreasonable fears MT 259 44 121 30 Q 234 39 124 31 MF 102 17 156 39 Mean : -0.26 Mean : 0 . 09 10. Conscious of fears and faults MT 272 A C 4 D 130 33 S 196 33 125 31 MF 127 21 146 36 Mean: -0.24 Mean : 0. 04 11. 111 at ease socially MT 104 17 77 19 S 159 27 104 26 MF 332 56 220 55 Mean : 0.38 Mean : 0.36 12. Lack life goals MT 132 22 79 20 S 167 28 96 24 MF 296 50 226 56 Mean : 0.28 Mean: 0.37 13. Left out of things MT 174 29 130 32 S 181 31 103 26 MF 240 40 168 42 Mean : 0.11 Mean : 0.09

PAGE 148

137 Involved Noninvolved group group Item (N = 595) (N = 401) Cases Percent Cases Percent 14. Unsure of changing feelings MT 131 22 95 24 S 169 28 122 30 MF 295 50 184 46 Mean: 0.28 Mean : 0.22 ± D . Unhappy much of the time MT 85 14 80 S 96 16 85 zi MF 414 70 236 59 Mean : 0.55 Mean : 0.39 Attitudes Toward Fellow Students 16. Dislike some classmates MT 211 36 91 23 S 186 31 71 id Mr 198 33 239 59 Mean : -0.02 Mean : 0. 37 17. Not well acquainted MT 81 14 80 20 S 125 21 71 18 MF 389 65 250 62 Mean : 0. 52 Mean : 0.42 18. Students are snobbish MT 166 28 131 33 S 234 39 133 33 MF 195 33 137 34 Mean : 0.05 Mean : 0.01

PAGE 149

138 Item Involved group (N = 595) Noninvolved group (N = 401) Cases Percent Cases Percent 19. Classmates are immature MT 314 53 180 45 S 158 26 114 28 MF 123 21 107 27 Mean : -0.32 Moan • -0 18 20. Few students control affairs MT 209 35 150 37 S 188 32 123 31 MF 198 33 128 32 Mean : -0 . 02 Mean : -0.05 21. Many feel unwanted MT 135 23 100 25 S 195 33 123 31 MF 265 44 178 44 Mean : 0 . 22 Mean : 0 . 19 22. New students ignored MT 177 30 107 27 S 158 26 86 21 MF 260 44 208 52 Mean : 0.14 Mean : 0. 25 23. Students not helpful MT 142 24 101 25 S 184 31 126 32 MF 269 45 174 43 Mean : 0.21 Mean : 0.18

PAGE 150

139 Item Involved group (N = 595) Noninvolved group (N = 401) Cases "D o V r~» o T*! "I~ V^d o t. o p (Ci >£:s ttH 24. No interest in activities of "f~ V» o T" c; MT 132 22 105 26 S 211 36 154 38 MF 252 42 142 36 Mean : 0.20 Mean : 0. 09 25. Compare self with others MT 116 20 O W S 173 29 112 28 MF 306 51 203 51 Mean : 0.32 Mean : 0.29 Attitudes Toward Teachers 26 . Teachers will not listen MT 166 28 A A 1 H 1± S 162 27 258 64 MF 267 . 45 y y Mean : 0.17 Mean : 0.14 27.' Unwilling to help individuals MT 249 42 65 16 S 168 28 262 65 MF 178 30 74 19 Mean: -0.12 Mean : 0.02 28 . Some teachers favor girls MT 241 40 64 16 S 164 28 272 68 MF 190 32 65 16 Mean: -0. 09 Mean : 0. 00

PAGE 151

140 Item Involved group (N = 595) Noninvolved group (N = 401) Cases Percent Cases Percent 29. Some teachers favor boys MT 95 16 26 6 S 170 29 268 67 MF 330 55 107 27 Mean : 0.39 Mean : 0.20 30. Teachers not up to date lYli 121 20 43 11 s 179 30 251 62 MF 295 50 107 27 Mean : n o Q U . Mean : U , 16 31. Teachers think students know less 216 37 58 14 s 168 28 265 66 MF 211 35 78 20 Mean : U . Ul Mean : 0.05 32. Teachers speak unkindly MT 199 33 62 15 S 190 32 264 66 MF 206 35 75 19 Mean : 0. 01 Mean : 0.03 33. Teachers are nervous MT 112 19 43 11 S 141 24 255 64 MF 342 57 103 25 Mean : 0.39 Mean: 0.15

PAGE 152

141 Item Involved group (N = 595) Noninvolved group (N = 401) Cases Percent Cases Percent 34. Teachers use big words MT 107 18 46 11 S 149 25 248 62 MF 339 57 107 27 Mean : 0.39 Mean : 0. 15 35. Teachers too strict MT 124 21 36 9 S 171 29 258 64 MF 300 50 107 27 Mean : 0.30 Mean : 0.18 36. Teachers expect too much MT 133 22 63 16 s 157 27 132 33 MF 305 51 206 51 Mean : 0.29 Mean : 0.36 37. Teachers reward favors MT 106 18 57 14 S 106 18 111 28 MF 383 64 233 58 Mean : 0.47 . Mean : 0.44 38 . Hate at least one teacher MT 205 35 134 33 S 114 19 107 27 MF 276 46 160 40 Mean : 0.12 Mean : 0.06

PAGE 153

142 Item Involved group (N = 595) Noninvolved group (N = 401) Case*? Percent Pa
PAGE 154

143 Item Involved group (N = 595) Noninvolved group (N = 401) Cases Percent pa o p q \^ V-'
PAGE 155

144 Item Involved group (N = 595) Noninvolved group (N = 401) Cases Percent Cases Percent Too many rules MT 168 28 101 25 S 149 25 114 29 MF 278 47 186 46 Mean : 0.18 Mean: 0. 21 50 . Principal not helpful MT 136 23 78 20 S 153 26 93 23 MF 306 51 230 57 Mean : 0.29 Mean: 0.38 3 X • Wealthy receive better treatment MT 117 20 107 27 S 102 17 76 19 MF 376 63 218 54 Mean : 0.44 Mean : 0 . 28 Principal not needed MT 123 21 59 15 S 130 22 82 20 MF 342 57 260 65 Mean : 0. 37 Mean: 0.50 53. Principal 's role unknown MT 209 35 131 33 S 161 27 116 29 MF 225 38 154 38 Mean : 0.03 Mean : 0.06

PAGE 156

145 Involved Noninvolved group group (N = 595) (N = 401) Cases Percent Cases Percent 54. Principal should improve MT 206 35 169 42 S 184 31 135 34 MF 205 34 97 24 Mean: -0.00 Mean: -0.18 Attitudes Toward School (General) 55. School needs improving MT 222 37 148 37 S 151 26 121 30 MF 22 2 37 132 33 Mean: 0. 00 Mean : -0. 04 Textbooks are out-dated MT 150 25 99 25 S 192 32 126 31 MF 253 43 176 44 Mean : 0. 17 Mean: 0. 19 Curriculiam irrelevant MT 94 16 93 23 S 128 21 103 26 MF 373 63 205 51 Mean : 0. 47 Mean : 0. 28 Little chance for socializing MT 214 36 106 27 S 176 30 125 31 MF 205 34 170 42 Mean: -0.02 Mean: 0.16

PAGE 157

146 Involved Noninvolved group group (N = 595) (N = 401) Cases Percent Cases Percent 59. Activities of organizations curbed MT 185 31 129 32 S 181 30 137 34 MF 229 39 135 34 Mean : 0.07 Mean: 0. 01 60. Exhibits for showing-off purposes MT 118 20 81 20 S 145 24 102 26 MF 332 56 218 54 Mean : 0.36 Mean : 0.34

PAGE 158

REFERENCES Ahola, Allen Arthur. "A Study of the Relationship Between the Community School Concept and Selected Public Attitudes," Dissertation Abstracts International ,. 31:2088-A, November, 1970. Baker, Jeroline Ann. "A Study of the Attitudes of Parents, Teachers and Principals Toward Parental Involvement in School Activities," Dissertation Abstracts Inter national , 34:1470-A, October, 1973. Battle, Jean A. Techniques and Instruments for Measuring Certain Student Human Relations . Doctoral dissertation , University of Florida, 1954 . Bender, William Dean. "Growth in Understanding Among Lay Citizens Through Participation in School Planning," Dissertation Abstracts International , 32:4826-A, March, 1972. Blair, Glenn Myers, Stewart R. Jones, and Ray H. Simpson. Educational Psychology . 3d ed. New York: The Macmillan Company, 19 68. Bohnhorst, Ben A. (ed.). Some Promising Practices in Improving School-Community Relations . Publication of the Cooperative Program in Elementary Education, University of Georgia, 1959. Cloward, Richard A., and James A. Jones. "A Social Class: Educational Attitudes and Participation." Education in Depressed Areas , ed. A. H. Passow. New York: Bureau of Publications , Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963. Coakley, Philip Oldham. "A Study of the Expressed Attitudes of Elementary Children, and Parents of Elementary School Children Concerning the Curriculiim, Teaching Methods, School Plant, and School Personnel," Disser tation Abstracts , 16:1382, November, 1956. Deshler, Betty, and John L. Erlich. "Citizens Involvement: Evolution in the Revolution," Phi Delta Kappan , 3, LIV (November, 1972), 173-175. Dewey, John. Moral Principles in Education . New York: Philosophical Library, 1959. 147

PAGE 159

148 Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods . 2d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. Farrah, George. "The Roles of Citizens Advisory Committees in Curriculum Development: A Special Case in Farmington, Michigan," Dissertation Abstracts , 23:1230, October, 1962. Farrar, Doc. A Refinement of an Instrument to Determine ^ Certain Characteristics of the Working Pattern of School Principals . Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1956. Fisher, Eleanor (ed.). "The Additions' School Volunteers Extra. " Official Newsletter of School Volunteer Services, Orange County, Orlando, Florida, 1974. (Mimeographed . ) Florida Department of Education. Florida Educational Directory . Tallahassee: Textbook Services, 1973'. Fox, David J. The Research Process in Education . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. Geisert, Gene Alvin. "The Relationship of the Junior High School Teachers' Knowledge of Pupils to Various Scheduled Patterns, Change in Pupil Attitudes, and Selected School-Community, Pupil and Teacher Characteristics," Dissertatio n Abstracts, 26:6550, November, 1965. Glass, Jean V., and Julian Stanley. Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology . Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall, Inc. , 1970. Goodwin, George H. A Study of Certain Teacher Activities and Human Relations with Special References to Working Patterns of School Principals . Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1955. Grobman, Hulda. The Public School Principal's Operational Behavior, Theory and Practice, and Related School a nd Community Interactions, Based on Data from the Investigations of the University of Florida CPEA Leadership Project : Doctoral dissertation, Univers i ty of Florida, 1958. Hall, Dwight Willis. "The Effects of School Involvement on the Educational Attitudes of Community Adults," Dissertation Abstracts International , 32:124-A, July, 1971.

PAGE 160

149 Hamlin, Herbert M. "Organized Participation in the Public Schools," Review of Educational Research , 4, XXIII (October, 1953), 346-351. Henderson, Lee Gibbons. A Study of Certain School-Community Relationships with Special Reference to Working Patterns of School Principals" Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1954. Hess, Robert D., and Virginia C. Shipman. "Maternal Attitude Toward School and the Role of Pupil: Some Social Class Comparisons." Paper prepared for the Fifth Work Conference on Curriculum and Teaching in Depressed Areas, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1966 . Hines, Vynce A., and Hulda Grobman . "What Parents Think of Their Schools and What They Know About Them," National Association of Secondary-School Principals (February , 1957) , 15-25. Kentucky. Department of Education. Measuring the Community School. Educational Bulletin, Division of Teacher Education and Certification, Kentucky, 1946. Kindred, Leslie W. , and Paul W. Allen. "Cooperation Improves Individual Schools." Citizen Cooperation for Better Public Schools , ed. Nelson B. Henry. The FiftyThird Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1954. Land, Warren Alonzo. Certain Parental Feelings Toward Selected Aspects of a University Laboratory School . Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1960. Lewis, Arthur J., and Alice Miel. Supervision for Improved Instruction: New Challenges , New Responses . Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1972. Longs treth, James W. School Advisory Council Handbook . Gainesville: Alachua County Schools of Florida, 1974. Luckenbach, Leon A. The Effect of Principal's Inservice Leadership Training Course Upon His Operational Behavior Pattern and Upon Attitudes of Teachers , Pupils and Parents . Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1959. Lyle, Jerolyn R. Research on Achievement De terminants in Educational Sysrems: A Survey . A Report to the U.5 . uttice o± Education, Washington, D. C, January 22, 1968. Prepared by the National Center for Educational Statistics, Division of Operations Analysis, Washington, D.C., 1968. (ERIC No. ED 018 858).

PAGE 161

150 Mara, Vincent Joseph. "A Study of the Reactions of Professional Educators to Lay Participation in Curriculum Study," Dissertation Abstracts , 12:2720, February, 1962. Maynard, Honor. A Study of Pupil Human Relations within the School as InFluenced by the Principal's Pattern of Behavior . Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1955. Miller, Lorraine E. Annual Report of School Progress . Miami: Dade County Public Schools, 1974. National School Public Relations Association. Human Re lations: Current Trends in School Policies and Programs . Washington : National School Public Relations Association, 1973. Olsen, Edward G. (ed.). The Modern Community School . New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts , Inc., 1953. Oscarson, Janice M. "Community Involvement in Accountability," Journal of Research and Development in Edu cation , 5:1 (Fall, 1971) , 79-86. Paelet, David. "The Relationship Between Pupil and Adult Attitudes Toward School," Dissertation Abstracts Inter national , 34:1180-A, September, 1973. ' Passow, Harry A. (ed.). Education of the Disadvantaged . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. _• (ed.). Developing Programs for the Educationally Disadvantaged " New York : Teachers College Press, 1968 . Roessel, Robert A. Jr. "The right to be wrong and the right to be right," Journal of American Indian Edu cation, 7:2 (January, 1968) , 1-6. ~ Saylor, Galen J., and Alexander, William M. Planning Curriculum For Schools . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974. Schiff , Herbert Jerome. The Effect of Personal Contactual Relationships on Parent's Attitudes Toward ParticI^ pation in Local School Affairs . Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1963 . Seay, Maurice F., and Ferris N. Crawford. The Community School and Community Self-Improvement. A Review of t he Michigan Community School Services Program from July 1 , 1945 to October 1, 1953 . Lansing: Department of Public Instruction, Michigan, 1954.

PAGE 162

151 Seldin, Florence. "A Study of an Attempt to Increase Community Involvement in an Urban School System," Dissertation Abstracts International , 34:2936-A, December , 1973 . Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the Classroom . New York: Vintage Books, 1971. Smith, Lawrence E. The Relationship Between Parental Attitude Toward the School and Distance Lived from the School . Phase 1. Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1956. Thomsen, Donald R. An Analysis of Certain Objective Measures for the Prediction of the Community's Reaction to a Principal's Behavior . Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1956. U.S. Department of Commerce. County and City Data Book , 1972; A Statistical Abstracts Supplement . Social and Economics Statistics Administration. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1973. Wendel, Egan 0. "Parent and Student Attitudes Toward School in a Predominantly Negro Community," Disser tation Abstracts , 22:4250, June, 1962. Williams, Paul P. Techniques for Studying Certain School Community Relationships . Doctoral dissertation, Universrty of Florida, 1953.

PAGE 163

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Stanley Peter Dromisky was born on June 25, 1931, in Fort William, Ontario, Canada. He attended Ogden Public School and the Fort William Collegiate Institute. In June, 1951, he graduated from the North Bay Teacher's College and began teaching in the Fort William public school system, serving in an elementary school, a middle school, and as an elementary school principal for four years. In 1958, he received the Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Western Ontario. As a master in Lakehead Teacher's College from 1961 to 1969, the courses he taught included Art Education, Psychology in Education, School and Community, History and Philosophy in Education, Industrial Arts, and Child Psychology. During the summer semesters, he taught for the Ontario Department of Education. In 1961, he received a Bachelor of Education degree from the University of Toronto and, in 1963, an Industrial Arts Certificate. In 1969, he accepted an assistant professorship with the Faculty of Education, Lakehead University, where he taught psychology, curriculum, administration, and art education courses. 152

PAGE 164

153 From Wisconsin State University, he received the Master of Education degree in 1971. A promotion to rank of Associate Professor was granted in 1972, During the summer he was associated with the Secondary Teacher's Certification Program. For years he has actively served with numerous community groups such as the Kinsmen Club, Inter-Service Club Council, Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital Study Group, Lakehead Social Planning Council, and Association for Children with Learning Disabilities. He was an elected trustee on the Fort William Board of Education and in 1972 he resigned from the Thunder Bay Board of Education after four years as trustee in order to begin his doctoral program. Professionally he has served as executive member of the Ontario Teachers' College Association, President of the Ontario Teacher Education Association, Lakehead University Senate, the Ontario Trustee's Council Curriculum Committee plus numerous other committees. He is a member of the Canadian Association of University Professors, the Canadian Association of Professional Educators, the Ontario Teacher Education Association, Phi Delta Kappa, the National Community School Education Association, and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development . His marriage, with the former Peggy Stenback, has been blessed with two daughters, Jan Lynne and Susan.

PAGE 165

154 In September, 1974, he resumes his position as Associate Professor of Education in the Faculty of Education, Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

PAGE 166

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August, 1974 ^T^fnce A. Hirfes Professor of Education Dean, Colleg^ of ) Education u Dean, Graduate School